











:>"^ 



S?. 















-^v.^^ 

c*^^ 

,^^ ^ 



■ .<S^ 



''^Qi "c 









•<"^* 

.<^'^. 















v^\^'- 






f\^ . " • 















Or 



^-^^ 












• ,*^' 






.!b^^o,. 












♦ -^^ 

A 












v*^^ 















°o .j-^ 

























* Ay ^ 

















"^^ %3^* ^<J,^' 








»bv^ 



^"•'t. 



4^ 





















NATIONAL POLITICS. 



SPEECH 



HON. ALBERT G. TALBOTT, 

OF KENTUCKY, 

DELIVERED IN I-HE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, JULY 2S, 1856, 

Defining his Position on Kiioiv Nothingism, Black Republicanism, and Democracy. 



The House being in I'lie Committee of tlie Whole on the 
state of the Union — * 

Mr, TALBOTT said: 

Mr. Chairman; In a fev/ remarks I had the 
honor to submit on a former occasion, I stated 
that I had been elected to a seat upon this floor 
as an independent Whig. I stated then, also, the 
platform of principles upon which I was elected, 
and to which I stood pledged to all parties, and 
to the country. I take occasion now to reassert 
and reindorse the same platform of principles, 
for by them I am willing to stand or fall. I had 
no time then, under the operation of the ten-min- 
ute rule, to elaborate and enforce them; and I rise 
now to ask the indulgence of the committee to vin- 
dicate and justify the positions then assumed — 
to define more clearly my own position — to 
indicate my future political course, and contrast, 
briefly, the relative positions of the different 
political parties now in the country. I desire, 
also, Mr. Chairman, to respond to some of the 
remarks made by my honorable colleague [Mr. 
Cox] a few evenings since. In doing this, I will 
be necessarily compelled to say something about 
Whiggeryand Dem.ocracy, freedom and slavery, 
Know Nothingism and Black Republicanism; 
and I invite the attention of gentlemen of all the 
political parties in the House, especially that of 
my honorable colleague. 

I do not rise, Mr. Chairman, to discuss the ex- 
citing questions now before the country in a spirit 
of vituperation, or with a heart overflowing with 
personal rancor and sectional ill-will, to engage 
in crimination and recrim.ination. Of that, I 
think, we have had quite enough already. I 
would rather, if I could, wipe out— obliterate for- 
ever — every offensive word, either personal or 
sectional, tliat has been uttered on this floor., and. 
say something, if I knew what, that would cause 
the members of this Congress to flow together, 
and legislate, as did our fathers, like a band of 
brothers. And why not, Mr. Chairman .' Why 
not we live, harmonize, and triumph together, as 
did our falliers ? We have the same high priv- 



ileges to enjoy, the same great interests to main- 
tain, that were enjoyed and maintained by them. 
They had all the same institutions, political, 
social, and domestic, to regulate, that we have. 
They had all the same population to control, 
native-born, naturalized, and foreign, that we 
have. They had all the same religions — Pro- 
testant and Roman Catholic, to tolerate and pro- 
vide for, that we have. And yet, sir, they did 
not disagree: they could live, and legislate, and 
harmonize together. They drew no invidious 
distinctions between Protestants and Roman 
Catholics — between native-horn and naturalized 
citizens. In peace they lived and loved together:: 
in war they fought and bled for each other. The 
foe was a common foe, and the a^my of defense 
united. They preserved harmony by providing 
for every section; they maintained the Union by 
the equality of rights; they prevented intolerance 
by the freedom of religion; they sustained the 
Government by doing justice to all. And thus, 
without dissension, without division, and with- 
out revolution, they led us on from weakness 
to strength, and from greatness to glory, until, 
by their wisdom, diplomacy, and peaceful gov- 
ernment, they have won for us a place and a 
name in the rank of nations the most elevated 
and enviable in the world. And shall we now, 
by our dissensions and discords about slavery 
and religion, nativeism and foreignism,in a spirit 
of intolerance, suflfer ourselves to be lashed into a 
state of frensy, and precipitated into a senseless, 
suicidal, civil loar, and thus prove ourselves less 
competent to maintain and enjoy, than our fathers 
were to provide, preserve, and transmit to us, this 
glorious inheritance — our free institutions? No, 
Mr. Chairman, I have not risen for any purpose 
of crimination — not in a spirit of vituperation, 
but of conciliation. I would not say a word 
which, if I knew it, would add one iota to the 
already too excited state of feeling here and in 
the country. Vituperation, denunciation, and 
detraction, in my judgment, prove notliing to be 
either true or false. 
I am not for war, I am for peace; my people 






are not for war, they are for peace; my section 
is not for war, we are all for peace. We are for 
the Constitution as it is; we are for the Union as 
it exists. We believe the Constitution as it 
is, secures the rii^hts of ail; and the Union, if 
preserved, can maiiunin the rij;his ofall. We are, 
therefore, for ljot*h — for peace, and against war. 
I have not, therefore, risen to criminate or to 
denounce, or for any purpose of that sort. With 
gentlemen and tlieir secret motives I have noth- 
ing to do. It is of parties — the good or evil ten- 
dency of iheir principles — their doctrinesand their 
systems of policy, that I desire, freely, yet 
respec»l'u!ly, to t;jicak, on the present occasion. 
Honest men, Mr. Chairman, sometimes entertain 
fery erroneous opinions — good men .sometimes 
preach very absurd and dangerous doctrines. 
Paul, the great Apostle of the (Jeiuile.s, I pre- 
sume, persecuted the early Christians with quite 
as much zeal and purity of purpose, at the time, 
as he ever afterwards preached the Gospel of life 
and salvation to a lost and ruined world. Yet, 
with all liis zeal — with all his purity of pur- 
pose, he trampled under foot the precious blood 
of atonement, and crucified afresh the Lord of 
glory, by denying his Messiahship and his mis- 
sion. While, therefore, I in'end to speak freely, 
and what I think, of the opinions, views, and 
doctrines of all the political parties, I do not in- 
tend to attribute improper motives to any. J 
rise for no such purpo.se. 1 rise, sir, for a very 
diflerent, a more important, and, 1 trust, for a 
much more laudable purpose. The rights of my 
.constituents and the institutions of my State have 
been assailed; the equal rights of my section 
denied; our glorious Union is menaced; and I 
rise to discharge what 1 conceive to le a high 
duty I owe, in my representative capacity, to my 
constituents, to the Constitution of my country, 
to the Union of the States, to the freedom of re- 
ligion, and to the equality of rights. 1 rise, sir, i 
in the name and in behalf of all these great in- | 
terests, to entt-r here, in my representative capa- 
city, my humble, yetearnest and mosisolemn pro- 
lestagainst, what I conceive to be, the erroneouf, 
revolutionary, and suicidal jirinciples and doc- 
trines of Know Nolhingi.sm and Black Republi- 
canism. 1 prot<st against the principles and )iol- 
icy of Black llepiiliUi-anism, on the oni« ]iaiui, as 
violative' of the (yiiiislitution, incendiary and rev- 
olutionary in their very nature, exciting strife 
and ill-will between the dilferciit sections of the 
Union by lli(.'ir very propagation, and, if carried 
out, not only de^trticlirc to the )ig/i/sand deprailini^ 
to ilw ]}cuj;le of the South, Init must and will, in 
tUe very nature of things, nsiilt in a disruption 
of the Union. J jirotesi against tlu' doctrines of 
Know iS'othingis;non the other hand, as virtually, 
•though iiidin-ctly, uniting Church and State, get- 
iiug up u war of races and religions, drawing in- 
yidious distinctions between both, incendiary and 
rt^philioiiary in their very nature, exciting, by 
their propagation, discord:- and dissensions preju- 
dicial to l)oth Cliunh and Siatjj — reipiiring new 
tests of birth and blood for o(riee,miiinuwn to.und 
TJoIulive of the Constitution, which, ii' carried out, 
while they may be slower in tin ir operations, 
must lUid will prove no less ruiiiou« in their 
results. 

P.ut, Mr. Cbairman, this is not tlie only pur- 
pose for which i have risen. I biive uol riseJj 



' merely to enter my protest against Know Noth- 
' ingism and Ulack Republicanism — not merely to 
' say that our rights have been assailed and our 
I Union threatened. It will not do to raise the cry 
I of danger, and :lo nothing to avert it. It will not 
do to see- the whirlwind and the storm approacli- 
|; ing from the North, and make no preparation to 
j receive it. It will not do to say our glorious 
h Union is menaced, and do nothing to save it, 
r No, sir, this is not the part I wish or intend to play 
■' in the great political drama now being enactecl 
! before tlie country. I not only desire to be a 
faithful sentiin 1, but one also of the rank and file., 
in the great army of defense. And 1 rise, now, 
Mr. Chairman, to enlist in that army. I rise to 
enlist for the war. 1 have buckled on my armor, 
and never intend to lake it off until the last foe- 
man li'aves the field, or I fall. I rise to take 
my stand with the Democracy of ihe country, 
against Know Nothingism, Black Republicanism, 
and all the isms — to defend the Constitution and 
the Union, against all aggression, innovation, or 
infraction, come from what quarter it may — in 
favoroffreedcim of thought, and freedom ofspeech, 
freedom of the press, and freedom of sulTrage, 
freedom of religion, and the equality of rights — 
■ the lime-honored principles of the old Whig and 
I the. old Democratic parties, which have brought 
us thus far so safely, so triumphantly, and so 
gloriously, through every vicissitude of fortune. 
It is here, as an independent Whig, I t;ike my 
stand: it is here the old Whig party stood. It is 
I here the old Democratic parly now stands; and 
I with them, and their time-honored jirinciples, 1 
I intend to stand or fall. And if tall I must, my 
j last cry, in falling, shall be for the Constitution 
' and the Union— the freedom of religion, and the 
' equality of rights. 

To show you, Mr. Chairman, that I now stand 

precisely where the old Whig party, as a parly. 

I stood in 1814, when Mr. Clay himself was a can- 

I didate for tlie Presidency, running against Mr. 

I Polk, I will rwad a preamble and siring of resolu- 

i tions adopted at a mass meeting of the Whigs of 

Louisville, Kentucky, on the li7th day of July, 

I 1844, repudiaiing a Whig }>apcr (the Louisvill* 

j Tribune) which had been started there, and which 

they had previously indorsed. But, upon th« 

, apj>earance of an article in that pa|>er, charging 

j ujion the Catholic church the identical charges 

I ni>w preferred by the Know Nothing party, the 

Whigs of Louisville met in mass, and passed iho 

r following preamble and resolutions, re|)udiating 

i both the article and the paper. They read as 

I follows: 

I "At a inn?s ni(!etin3*»f llie VVIiiss of Lnuisvillf, ronren«l 

.•U tliu Wlii^ raviiiiiii, ft} Uie evfiiiiii' of Uie '2~th iiislun^ 

tor llic ()iir|)i)ic ol' lakini; hiln cnii.-uii raiioii llin propriiiy 

! o!' inukiiiK |>uhlic rxprc^^ioii of ifii-ir opinions in rclainm u> 

' llio eoiirsd ol" the Louisville Tribune, reemtly oslnlili^iied 

III lliis cuy, nroli:rt.sins to bi: a Wliij; newrpapi-r, on uiotuin of 

I N'.illiauiel \V(>l;i-. iHv^iilcMl of llic l-oui«Villtr <;i:iy (.'luh, 

, Willi.iiii J. Grave-^ w.i-calh'd lo Uiccliiur. "I'lUTeiipoij ,M». 

\V(il:'i', alliT fomc oxplrtimuiry rcMii.irkH, oflVrcrt tl)c fol- 

liiwina preamble and rvsulution:), wlilcli wore uiiaiiiinoiisir 

j iidopiod: 

I '■ VVIierc.T, n new pnpnr r.illcd tlic Lo•.li^ville Tniiuaii, 
I recently pM.iMislied in this ciiy, prn;■|•^■^in5 lo lie a VVIi:j 
I ptipi-r, ha:) put>ll.-<hed odilnrialH and eoniiMiinicnliiiny, one of 
j wliloli was Kigned ■ A Naiivu Aiiierii-nn,' ol .i ino>t niitt- 
I rrpuhlio.iii rli.iriii-ler, rejircting u)'on Ike Culh-jlic pcrsuntion, 
I and espor;;illy Ihe C-'.ilholio p^il'^IllooIl, cliarijing tliom Wilfl 
I hosidiiy in AnnTiran lilii-rly : H.' it iherefoic 
I '♦ netolrcH, 'I'lial llie VVhig.-<, ns a |mrly, utterly repudiata 
! OTui denounce liic aDli-republiran and ui\juhi' slrtciureK 



indulged by the Louisville Tribune towards the Catholic 
Church of this country. 

" ResoU-eil, That the Whigs of this city regard the con- 
tinued se/»i:r«<wno/C/iurc/4«n<i State US essential to the per- 
petuity of our lii;e institutions; and we hereby denounce 
the ediirts of the LocoCoco party to array against each other 
the diffi^rent rehgious persuasions, and to create a line of 
political demarkaiion lictwccii the Protestants and the Catho- 
'tics, as subversive of the Itestinterestsof religion, and inimi- 
cal to the perpetuity of civil and religious liberty. 

"Resolved^ That the Louisville Tribune, in the opinion of 
thi.s meeting, is not a correct exponent of Whig principles, 
and we hereby rescind a resoiution adopted by ns upon tlie 
■establishment, of that paper, that we should subscribe for 
and recommend it to the support of the Whig party. 

" WM. J. CRAVES, Chairman.''^ 

These resolutions repudiate and denounce the 
Catholic feature in llie Know Nothing platform 
as unju.st and anii-republican. They were offered 
by Whig.s, in a Whig meeting, in Mr. Clay's 
own State, under his own eye, by his own friends, 
and in the natneand in belialf of the Whig party, 
as such, and when Mr, Clay himself was a can- 
didate for the Presidency. Tliey say in the reso- 
lutions, that they repudiate, ns a party, the unjust 
and anti-republican article, and the paper as a 
Whig paper. They repudiate the article contain- 
ing the charges against the Catholics as unjust, 
anti-republican, and anti-Whig, So, then,Whig- 
gery in 1844, and Know Kothingism in 1856, ar^o 
antipodal. 

To show you now that this was not done 
against Mr. Clay's wishes and views, I will read 
from his ov/n speeches, made in Congress, upon 
the same subject. In Mr. Clay's speech on the 
srnancipation of South AiTierica, in speaking of 
the Catholic religion, he says; 

" They worship the same God that we do. Their prayers 
are offered up, in their teniples, to the same llcdeejner 
whose intercession we expect to save us. Nor is there 
iUnythingiii the Catholic religion unfriendly to freedom." 

From Mr. Clay's speech on American industry, 
in 1825, in alluding to the Catlioiic religion, he 
Bays: 

" I tlnnk the gentleman from Virginia does great injustice 
to the Catholic religion in specifying that as one of the Ieai3- 
ing canses of the.clcclineof Spain. It is a rcligioR entitled 
to great respect ; and there is jiothiiig in its character in- 
compatible with the highest degree of national prosperity. 
Is not Catholic PVance the most polished, and in many 
•Other respects, the most distinguished, n:\Xe of Christendom ? 
•Is not Flanders, the most populous part of Europe, also 
■Catholic .■■ Are the Cathelic parts of Switzerland and Ger- 
Uiany less prospt^rous than those which are Protestant." 

You then see that Mr, Clay, the great leader 
•of the Whig party, and the Whig party, (in Ken- 
tucky at !east,) as such, have always occupied 
precisely the same ground I now occupy upon 
ithat subject. And I appeal to every old-line 
Whig in the nation, to rally to the rescue of the 
time-honored principles, eo ably and eloquently 
maintained by their once gallant, but now de- 
parted leader^ 1 am proud to say, sir, that the 
unrivalled sage of Ashland has one son (James 
B. Clay) who is now nobly defending and main- 
taining the sentiments of his illustrious father, 
which I have just read. 

I have now defined my position, and indicated 
my future course. 1 will next contrast, briefly, 
the relative positions of the three parties now 
before the country, with their candidates seeking 
to obtain the control of the Government. In 
doing this, Mr. Chairman, I will endeavor to dis- 
play that coolness, candor, and correctness, de- 
manded by the crisis, and to view the relations, 
on all sides, in the light of truth, justice, and fair- 



play. I will, at least, not be guilty, knowingly, 
of judging others by a rule by which I would not 
willingly be judged myself. I will hold no party 
responsible forany action, either past or prospec- 
tive, not warranted by the record, or clearly in- 
dicated by their positions and doctrines. 

There are three parties now in the field con- 
tending for the mastery and seeking to obtain the 
control of the Government. What the issues — 
what their relative positions — slavery or no sla- 
very — is the great, the paramount issue. Their 
relative positions are — Democracy in power, and 
Know Nothingism and Black Republicanism 
seeking to put him out; or, substituting the can- 
didates for their respective parties, Buchanan in 
power, and Fillmore and Fiemont endeavoring 
to remove him. And how do they propose to 
do it.' Why, by a sort of triangular fight — by 
Black Republicanism in the North, and by Know 
Nothingism in the South, And vi'liy put him out? 
Because, says Fremont in the North, he is for 
slavery and the slaveocracy. Because, says Mr. 
Fillmore in the South, he prefers the Constitution 
of Washington to the constitution of " Sara;" be- 
cause he is for freedom of religion and equality of 
rights; because he will not "swear" to vote for 
no man for any office in the Government, State 
or National, unless he be a native-born American 
citizen, in favor of Americans ruling America, 
nor if he be a Roman Catholic. These are the 
parties, these their pouitions, these their objects, 
and these their plans of operation. Democ- 
racy in power — shall we put him out? is the great 
question. We are called upon to disband, de- 
nounce, and discard the old Whig and the old 
Democratic parties, as odious, treacherous, and 
untrustworthy; to renounce, and forever repu- 
diate, as old fogyism, their time-honored prin- 
ciples and policy, which have now withstood 
every storm for near three quarters of a century; 
to adopt the unjust, unwise, and revolutionary 
doctrines of Know Nothingism and Black Re- 
publicanism, which already, ere they are two 
years old, have shaken society to its founda- 
tions, and the Government to its center. Talk 
about obnoxious acts and violated pledges! Who 
ever heard of ballot-boxes destroyed, houses 
burned, the inmates killed, and voters murdeied 
in going to and coming from the polls, in any 
great political contest in this country, between 
the old Whig and the old Democratic parties? 
Sir, I make no charge. I only S[)eak of the re- 
cord to vindicate the truth of history. If I could, 
I would throw a thick vail over that dark page 
of our country's liistory, and hide it forever 
from the view. " 1 have no doubt the spirit that 
bore the mournful deeds to Heaven's high chan- 
cery blushed as he gave them in; but 1 fear the 
recording angel, as he wrote them down, found 
no tear to drop, to blot them out forever." They 
may yet be called to pass in re vie v/ before the 
bar of retributive justice. 

But, Mr. Cuairman, to return, "for I have no 
joys 'mid scenes like these." Democracy is in 
power, and we are asked to turn liim out for the 
reasons assigned. Sliail we do it? is the great 
question for the South, for tiie national men of 
every section, to determine in the apfu-oaching 
presidential election. Now, sir, to present this 
whole subject in its true light, as it really is: £is 
Mr. Fremont is the candidate of a S'icliou ouJy, 



nominated and run by a spction— is purely upon 

a sectional qutslion, and for sectional purposes, 
as tlif-y themselves avow, to break down slavery 
and the slave power; — as this is Mr. Fremont s 
position, I desire, for the moment, to drop him, 
and contrast the relative positions of Mr. Buch- 
anan and Mr. Fillmore, both of whom claim to 
be national men. 

Then, sir, I ask the South, the North, the con- 
servative men everywhere, the old-line Whigs, 
and Democrats, are you for the Kansas-Nebraska 
bill, which neither establi.shes nor prohibits sla- 
very in cither Kansas or Nebraska, but which 
leaves the actual settlers of both perfectly free, 
when they come to frame their organic law, and 
ask for admission into the Union as a State, to 
reo^ulate their own institutions for themselves, to 
have slavery or not, as they choose.' If you are, 
Mr. Buchanan is with you, out and out; while 
Mr. Fillmore, in his plaiform, places the passage 
of that very act, as one of the charges preferred 
against the present Administration; and in his 
late Newburg speech, made only a few weeks 
since, he characterizes the repeal of the Missouri 
compromise line as the result of "selfish ambi- 
tion," a "wanton disturbance," a "Pandora's 
box, out of which have issued all the evils which 
now afflict the country." 

Are you for the fujjitive slave law and its faith- 
ful execution, which, in confonnity with the 
Constitution, requires the rendition of slaves, 
escaping into the free States, to their proper and 
legitimate owners.' If you are, Mr. Buchanan 
is with you square out, without equivocation or 
evasion. 

Are you opposed to the Wilmot proviso? If 
so, Mr. Buchanan, by his votes, by nis speeches, 
and in his platform, is straight out with you 
again. 

Are you for applying to all the unorganized 
Tcrrit )ries we now have, or may hereafter ac- 
quire, the priiicii)lc of non-intervention, as set 
forth in the ct>mpromise measures of 1850, and 
the Kansas-Neijniska i)ill of lb54? If you are, 
Mr. Buchanan has planted himself upon that 
great principle of the right and capability of man 
for self-government; while Mr. Fillmore, in his 
celebrated Erie letter, which I will now read, 
said that he was opposed to the aiimxation of 
Texas, under auij riirtinu'lauces, a.s long as ilaves 
were hild there, and in favor of the immediate abo- 
lition of slavery in the Dislriat of Columbia, and 
the abolition of the inttr-State slave trade. Mr. 
Fillmore's Erie letter reads as follows: 

BCFKALO, October 17, 1838. 
PiR : Vourcommuiiioation of the lOlli iiist:uit,a.schairiiiiui 
of the >'iiiiiiiiil|i>e n|>|)oiiiti'(l l)y Ihi- iinli >l.'ivcry hooii-ly of ihe 
count) 111 Krip. li.ii jufi i'oiik; In liiiiid. Vou s-olicit my '"'- 
»wvt Id till' Icilliivviiig ihtrrrcniiiorirs: 

1. I»ii you liilicvc llitil iirlitioiiine Conzrcss on the sub- 
ject of hfnvrry iiiid ilif ^lave Uiide oii|>)it to be reci-ived, 
read, and reepL-cllully coiihiderud by Uj<: repret>eulfttiveii of 
the people ? 

'J. Ar<> you opposed to tlin annexntion of Tcxiu lo lliw 
I'lMoii, liiidar ajiy rirciiiiiHtancci), so lung ax slaveii arc beld 
iJiore .' 

3. Ari' you in favor of ('ongresti oxrreiHinc nil tho consti- 
lntion:>l i'miwcdi it po'.At-MieH lo abolisli tin- internal blave 
Lrudt l.ciwt en llie Siatis.- 

4. Are you in favor of nninrdiaie Icgi'^lntion for tlip aboli- 
Uon of tiavt.'ry in Uic I>i^lrl^l of (.'olunibin.' 

I am mucli • iicai^t'd, and liav<' no Umi>- to entorinto ar^- 
mcnt, or cxpUiin at length ir.y rcusous tot my opinions. I 



[I Ehall, therefore, ronient myself for the present by answering 
j all your iuterrogatories in the affinnaiiie. and leave for some 
future oceasion a more extended discustion on the subject. 
I MILLARD FILLMORE. 

Now, my honorable colleague [Mr. Cox] said 
I in his speech, the other day, that every party 
; should be considered the only true erponent of its- 
I own vietcs. Judging ^Ir. Fillmore by that rule, 
who can read this letter, and have any doubt 
j about )iis position.' He says positively in tjjis 
I letter, he is for abolishing slavery in the District 
I of Columbia, and the inter-State slave trade, and 
I opposed to the annexation of Texas, ui.less they 
! abolish slavery there. 

1 desire now to compare Mr. Fillmore's posi- 
I tions on slavery, as indicated in his Erie letter, 
which I have just read, with Mr. Buchanan's 
I record for twenty years, from 1836 to 1856; and 
[ then let you, sir, and the committee, and the coun- 
try, see which has the highest claims to nation- 
I allty. This is Mr. Buchanan 's record for twenty 
' years: 

I. In 1836, Mr. Buchanan supported a bill to 
prohibit the circulation of abolition papers through 
the mails. 

i 2. In the same year he proposed and voted for 

, the admission of Arkansas. 

I 3. In lb36-37 he denounced and vottd to reject 
petitions for the abolition of slavery in the Dis- 
trict of Columbia. 

4. In 1837 he voted for Mr. Calhoun's famous 
resolutions defining the rights of the States and 
the limits of Federal authority, and afiirtning it 
to be the duty of the Government lo protect and 
uphold the institutions of the South. 

i 5. In 1838, ls3i), and 184U, he invariably voted 
with southern Senators against the consideration 
of anti-slavery petitions. 

I 6. In 1844 and 1845 he advocated and voted for 

i the annexation of Texas. 

I 7. In 1847 he sustained the Clayton compro- 
mise. 

8. In 1850 he proposed and urged the exten- 
sion of the Missouri compromise to the Pacific 
ocean. 

9. But he promptly acquiesced in the compro- 
mise of 1850, and employed all his influence in 
favor of the faithful execution of the fugitive 
slave law. 

10. In 1851 he remonstrated against an enact- 
ment of the Pennsylvania Legislature for ob- 
structing the arrest and return of fugitive slaves. 

II. In 1854 he negotiated for the ucquisition of 
Cuba. 

12. In 1856 he approves the repeal of the Mis- 
souri restriction, and supports the principles of 
the Kansas-Nebraska act. 

13. He never gave a vote against the interests 
of slavery, and never uttered a word which could 
pain the most sensitive southern heart. 

Now, sir, I have read you Mr. Fillmore's Erie 
I letter, containing his otrii account of his oirn posi- 
• tion; and I have reatl the written record of Mr. 
Buchanan's votes, giving his jiosition. Mr. Fill- 
more's Erie letter says he is in favor of abolish- 
ing slavery in the District of CJolumbin. Mr. 
Bu<linn(in 's recorii says he is against it. Mr. 
Fillmore's Erie letter says he was against the 
annexati{)n of Texas, unless slavery should be 
abolished there. Mr. Buchanan's record says he 
voted to receive Texas as it was. Mr. Filhnorc's 



Erie letter says he is for abolishing the inter- 
State slave trude. Mr. Buchanan's recorded vote 
for Mr. Callioun's famous resolutions of 1837 
says he is against it. Now, here is the record 
of the one, and the letter of the other, defining 
their positions. Which is the best? — which shall 
we believp.'' Mr. Buchanan's record makes him 
sound and national: Mr. Fillmore's letter make 
him unsound and sectional. What shall we do 
then? Sliall we sustain the record and the letter, 
and let Mr. Buchanan and his party continue at 
the helm, and Mr. Fillmore and his friends remain 
where they are ? or shall we falsify both record 
and letter, and say Mr. Fillmore is national, and 
Mr. Buchanan sectional? Sir, is it possible? has 
it come to this? is the cause of Know Nothingism 
so desperate that, in order to save it from swift 
and inevitable destruction, we must say that Mr. 
Buchanan's record for twenty years is false; and 
that the great inteiisdy Jlmerican candidate for the 
Presidency did not, when he wrote his Erie letter, 
know what he was for? 

But, again, in 1838, the following resolution 
was introduced into the Senate: 

"That any attempt of Congress to abolish slavery In any 
Territory ot the United States in wliieli it exists would 
create serious alarm and ju>t apprehensions in the States 
Kustainina tliat domestic institution; would be a violation of 
good faith towards the inhabitants of any such Territory, 
who were permitted to settle witli and hold slav<is therein, 
because the people of any such Territory liave not at^ked for 
the aboUtion of slavery therein, and because, u-hen any siuh 
Territory skall lie admilted into the Union as a State, the 
yeojile thereof will he entitled to decide that question ex- 
ciusively for themscloes.^' 

For this resolution stood side by side James 
Buchanan, Henry Clay, and John C. Calhoun. 
Mr. Wtsbter against it. 

But I wish now to read the following resolu- 
tions offered by Mr. Calhoun in the Senate of the 
United Slates, in the session of 1837-33, and 
voted for by Mr. Buchanan, as mentioned in the 
statement which I have just read. They are as 
follows: * 

" Resolved, That in the adoption of the Federal Constitu- 
tion, the States adopting the same, acted, severally, as free, 
independent, and sovereign States ; and that each lor itself, 
by its owii voluntary assent, entered the Union with a view 
to its ini-rea>ed security against all dangers, domestic as 
well as lorcigii, and the more perfectand secure enjoyment 
of its advantages, natural, political, and social. 
'^Resolrcd That in delegating a portion of their powers to be 
exercised by the Federal Government, the States retained, 
severally, the exclusive and sole right over their domestic 
institutions and police, to the full extent to which those 
powers were not thus delegated, and are alone responsible 
for them ; and that any intermeddling of any one or more 
States, or a combination of their citizens, with the domestic 
institutions and polii e of the others, on any ground, polit 
ical, mo)al, or reUsi3iis,or uiuler any prelcxt nliatccer, with 
the view to their alteration or subversion, is not warranted 
by the Constitution, tending to endangenlie domestic peace 
and tranquillity of the States interfered with, subversive ol 
the objects lor which the Constitution was formed, and, by 
necessary consequence, tending to weaken and destroy the 
Union itself. 

" RcsoU-ed, That this Government was instituted and 
adopted by the several Slates of this Union as a common 
agent, in order to carry into eti'ect the powers whicii tiiey had 
delegated by the Constitution for their mutual security and 
prosperity ; and that in fultillment of this high and sacred 
trust, this Governnieiil is bound so to exercise its powers as 
not to interfere with the stability and security of the domes- 
tic institutions of the States that compose the Union ; and 
that it is the solemn duty of the Government to resist, to 
the extent of their constitutional power, all attempts by otie 
portion of the Union to use it as an instrument to attack 
the doineslic institutions of the oilier, or to weaken or 
destroy such institutions. 
" Resolved, That doincstic slavery, as it exisfs in the south- 



ern and western States of this Union, composes an import- 
ant part of their domestic institutions, inherited from their 
ancestors, and existing at the adoption of the Constitution, 
by which it is recognized as constituting an important ele- 
ment in the apportionmentof powers ainong the States, and 
that no change of opinion or feeling on the part of the other 
States of the Union in relation to it, can justify them or 
their citizens in open and systematic attacks tlu;reon, with 
the view to its overthrow ; and that all such attacks are in 
manifest violatibn of the mutual and solemn pledge to pro- 
tect and defend each other, given by the States, re):pect- 
ively, oil entering into the constitutional compact which 
formed the Uni<m, and as such are a manil'est breach of/ 
faith, and a violation of the most solemn obligations. 

'• Resolved, That the interference by the citizens of any 
of the States, wilh the view to the abolition of slavery in 
this District, is endangering the rights and security of the 
people of the District : and that any .act or measure of Con- 
gress designed to abolish slavery in this District would be a 
violation of the faith implied in the cessions by the States 
of Virginia and Maryland, a just cause of alarm to the people 
of the slaveholding States, and a direct and inevitable tend- 
ency to disturb and endanger the Union. 

'■'■Resolved, That any attempt of Congress to abolish sla- 
very in any Territory of the United States in whiCh it ex- 
ists, would create serious alarm and just apprehension, in 
the States sustaining that domestic institution ; would be a 
violation of good faith towards the inhabitants of any such 
Territory who have been permitted to enter with, and hold 
slaves therein, because the people of any such Territory 
have not asked for the abolition of slavery therein, and 
because, when any such Territory shall be admitted into 
the Union as a State, the people thereof will be entitled to 
decide that question exclusively for themselves." 

These resolutions show Mr. Buchanan, not 
only sound upon the question of slavery, but 
sound on the Constitution. 

But again, in 1842, when the Whigs were ad- 
vocating and urging a miidification of the veto 
power of the President, Mr. Buchanan, in the 
Senate of the United States opposing it, and 
sustaining the Constitution as it is, said: 

" It would be easy to imagine interests of the deepest 
importance to particular sections whicli might be seriously 
endangered by its destruction. In the southern S'ates, 
which compose the weaker portion of the Union, a species 
ot property exists whicli is attracting the atteiiuon of the 
civilized world. These States never would have become 
parlies to the Union had not iheir rights in this property 
been secured by the Federal Constitution." * * * "It 
is possible that at some future day the majority in Con- 
gress may attempt by indirect means to emancipate the 
slaves of the South. There is no knowing through what 
channel the ever active spirit of fanaticism may seek to ac- 
complish its purpose. Do we feel so secure, in this hour of 
peril at home, as to be willing to prostrate any of the bar- 
riers which the Coiistiuilion has reared against hasty and 
dangerous legislation ? No, sir, never was the value of the 
veto power more manifi'st than at the present moment. 
For the weaker portion of the Union, whose constitutional 
rights are now assailed with such violence, to think of 
abuiidoing this safeguard, vvcmld be almost suicidal." 

What southern, what national man anyw' ere, 
can read this speech of the great Peiinsylvatiian 
in the Senate of the United States, in defense of 
the noble charter of our liberties, as it is — as it 
was framed, and fashioned, and signed, and 
secured to us by the Father of his Country, and 
his illustrious compeers? What patriot in the 
land can read this speech without seeing and 
exclaiming: "With Buchanan at the helm, the 
Constitution will be maintained, the Union pre- 
served, and our free institutions perpetuated!" 
Bui, again, this is Mr. Buelianan's record. 

1 wish now to compare Mr Fillmore's record 
in Congress with that speech of Mr. Buchanan, 
and see whicli is the national and conservative 
man. The following is Mr. Fillmore's record. 
Tlie Journals of Congress show that Mr. Fill- 
more supported, by his vote, petitions: 

1. To declare slaves free who had gone to sea 



6 



with the consent of their masters, and to protect 
them in iht-ir fn-idom; 

2. To repia! nil laws and constitutional pro- 
risions by which iho Fi dcral Govtrnnicnt is 
bound to protect the insiiiiition of sliiVfry; 

3. Against the admission of any new State 
into the Union whose constitution at all tolerates 
elaverv; 

4. Against the annexation of Texas, solely on 
the ground that slavery existed there; 

5. To aholisli slavery in the District of Colum- 
bia, though the whole people of the District 
cherished the institution, and never petitioned for 
it3 abolition; 

6. To prohibit the buying and soiling of slaves 
in the District and other Territories of the 
Union; 

7. He supported by his vote petitions of Con- 
gress t« re[)tal the act of the Territory of Florida, 
Id prevent migration of free negroes to the Ter- 
ritory; 

8. lie voted in favor of petitions to naturalize 
and make .liiieiican cilizens of negroes/co/ii evenj 
quarter of the eaiih ! and 

9. He voted in favor of a petition to receive 
«f|»TO embassadors from the black Republic of 
Hayti. 

1 will leave you, Mr. Chairman, and the coun- 
try, with these two records, to say which is the 
national and which the sidional, which is the 
safe, and which is the unsafe man to be trusted, 
Mr. Buchanan or Mr. Fillmore. 

But let us see further, if we can, how Mr. Fill- 
more stand.s. I think the record will show that 
he, like his parly, is, if you will allow the ex- 
pression, in a siaiu of all-to-piere-ntiveness. The 
Whig party, in convention assembled in Balti- 
more ill 185:2, declared that — 

"Tlie FeriPs of nets of tlie Thirty Fir^t Ctmsrcss, com- 
tnonly known as iho colnprolni^c, or ndjiistrnPnl, (the act 
for the rrrdViTV ol I'usilivcs from Inlxir inclmlfd.) are re- 
ceived iinii ;n-<iuiL'>crd ni by Ihi- Whirls of the L'liiird Slates 
as n finnl sciilcnx-iit, in yiiucijiU and tubilantc, uf the 
eubjfcia to whifh ihi-y ri'lale." 

This resolution committed the Whigs, as a 

5 arty, to the non-intervention principle of the 
lansa.s-Nebraska bill; and, " in spirit and sub- 
Btance" to the repeal of the Mi-ssouii line. And 
consequently, in l!:'.")4, nearly evury Whig, Sen- 
ator and Ki'|iresentaiive, in Congn-ss, from the 
South, voted for the Kan.sas-Nebraska bill with 
Uial uiiderstauding. 

What H'Xt? 1 will read now an extract from 
an editorial article in the Louisville Journal, dated 
Novi-mber IG, 18;j4,iifter th.' jmssage of the Ktm- 
Bas-Nebraska bill n pi-aling tlir M issonri coinpro- 
misc lini", showing that not only the Whig parly. 
but the Whig prrss, indorsed tlic pjinciptc of that 
bill. Thu extract is as ("ollows: 

"MlBflU'Rl COMI'RIIMISK — .MnilK OF A IIJI'.STM t NT.-- 

Tlnriy li'iir M-nr.< hk" '''« t-'"nKr<'!-H ol liie 1,'iiili'd Slllll■^ 
pll^.-<<l tin .irt wliii-h li.-iM fV(T .■•nii'c bci'u known by llu' 
nanii- of ilic '.MH-nuri i-onipnuni^r iii'l.' (^ongri's.-. tliin 
aili'inpli'd lo r-talili-h l>v bplrl^ilion what ean only p'lnia 
nuiillt and d<'liiji(('l\ bi-dunc hyan Minrndnii'tit of ihrCon 
•tiiuiiun. 'I'liis nuxallfd (-iiinproniiM- » ii- prarlii-nlly in 
opt-ralivc, lifeaii'i- il was umcn^lUuli'jiuil, and it w»^ 
Uni>nli>larlory, boc.niiM' it wa.i iinjusl. It wan unron><i7ii 
(unm<, hiraii^r the power to le|<j>hi(o in reference to slaverj 
ai properly — except in llie enj-e of fugitives — in nol roii 
fc-rred on (.■oiiBre>..< by tin' (°oii<iiiuti<in, neilliiT iii mcli n 
power neees^nry4o llie exeiii^e of any other omi- piveii In 
CoiigreNS. Il was loiMtif, he(•all^e, while il made nil the 
terniury nonli of 3t>* iw kbboluiely tree, il did nut do so u 



to that south of this line, hut left it to the will of the peo- 
ple who were its inhabitant.'' 

This, sir, is what the Journal then said upoB 
that subject. What he now says we will have to 
read his paper to see. If the Journal was then 
right, we certainly had truth, justice, and the 
Constitution upon our side, in the passage and 
maintenance of the Kansas-Nebraska bill; and if 
truth, justice, and the Constitution be on otir 
side, the people will certainly go with us; they 
are always right — always on the side of trutky 
justice, and the Cows/i/u/ioJi; and if the PEOPLE 
be for us, WHO in this couniry can stand against 
us? But, again, to show the rights the Journal 
then thought the South had in the Territories of 
the United States, under the Constitution, I will 
read another extract from that paper of December 
5, 185-1, in confirmation of the on • I have just read. 
This article is so consonant with my own views 
upon the sulject, and so much better expressed 
than I could express them myself, that I will 
transfer tlum as they are lo my speech, and 
adopt and indorse them as my own. It is in 
answer to an article of the Albany Evening Jour- 
nal, and reads as follows: 

" If the United States have the risht or power confenrd 
on them to acquire tiTritf>ry at all. it niii>t he for the use 
and hcnetil of all the States ; there is nothiii;; in the Coii- 
stiliition which even by implication will warmiil a partial 
apprnprfhiioii o!' this coiiiinon property of the Union. 

'■'J'he nsht of property in iiewly-aeqitired ierritf>ry n 
cither perftcl or iiiiiNTl'eet. if it is perfeci, thi'n il carries 
with it all the collateral rights, sncli as the enjnynien! of 
property of any description that ilie people oi either tlie 
.North or South may liapp<-ii toown. It it is in>iM'rl'eet,lhen 
must the iniperfecliun hi: occasioned by some cun^tltuliouai 
or heal provision. It e-annol e.xisi of itelf. 

'• 'J'he i'onsiiiution has noi only nor prohibited property in 
slave.'!, hill il has recognized it t>y providini; tor llieir reclA- 
mation when they shall have v.-cajH'd. The editor of the 
Albany Jmirnal says that we do ourselves injusiice by pul- 
ling free and slave labor on a eoninion plallorm. tVc wilt 
endeavor to lake care of our own reputation, and in doing 
so shall inform thai edifor thai we have iiul eontrasled the 
iwo Uin'ls of labor. Il is too laie^or the South |o argu* 
the relative nierit.e of ihe two species of labor. With hot 
that i|iiPstioii is sellleil— slave labor r? a fixed fact, fastened 
on hiT beyond contiol. Ii is their iiiiitual riiiWt and not the 
relative <jrfroii/r;»cs or disadvantages that are now the 
proper siilijects of discussion. Suppose «o s:ninl an indo- 
finile superioriiy of free over slave hihor. doi-s the ext-lence 
of such n lad take from the South the rishi to »r>e her in- 
ferior labor, such as it is, at all.' ."'uch a eoncli»-ion is as 
illogical as it.s practical enforcement would l>e ouira°eoiu 
and unju>t. 

" Hut it is asserted hy some of the more radical of the 
Free Soilers that shiver)' does nol nor cannot cxisl in Ihe 
Hniled State's territory unless ronrlijvrd by rj-jiirss le;is- 
lulion. To such persons we reply that tlie lefiishilive ait- 
ihority is found in the nition'jl I'oit^litiilioii ilie orennrc 
law of the land. If those who eoiiienil ilial slaven- can 
only exist by <lirect nulhocity establishins it, mean to limit 
( their application of the prinriple to a new government 
I never before formed, then they are ciirrerl, b«-c:in-e the 
I relnlion of master and slave cannoi exist j>cr «^— il niiisi be 
I eslalilisheil by the laws of the eonniry. Such |s ihe cno* 
1 III this country. Ii was eslalili-'lied in the Siate.t prior to 
the formation of ihe national C'oiistiiiiiioii ; lis erislenc* 
I was recognized by tli it iii>iriinieiit, and the ninlive right-. 
I and duties of the several States wen- e-tiil>li-lieil with ref- 
I erenee lo its peculiar reqiiin'iiieiils. The rilatimi nf master 
and slave haviii!; been thus leg.illy e~tablishi'il. the right 
follows the ina-ter wherever It lia> not Im-cii b (Tilly diverted. 
.Aiioilier State can divest hini o:' this ri-jlii. bi cause the 
Stale's authority to exclude slavery within their limits is 
unquestioned and un^^le^tlonahle; but in an orsanized Ter- 
ritory, helongini; to Ihe nation, there is no aiiihonly eoin- 
peh'nl lo legislate on Ihe suliject. The citizen of the slave 
.■'late, in the exercise of Ins light of i\)tnm6n i;se in the 
Territory, ban tile collateral right lo take with lum hU 
prop'-rty. 
" The Nortli may assert the right and the de^gn of appro- 



priatins all the territory now and hereafter to he acquired 
to the use and benefit of free labor, or free people alone; 
but if she does so, it is notliingbut the assertion of the right 
of revolution, and of a determination to resort to the arbit- 
rament of might ratlier than right, in the enforcement of 
bar claims." 

Now, Mr. Chairman, how any man could 
believ€ all this, and then think it wrong to pass, 
abide by, and maintain the Kansas-Nebraska bill, 
i am at a loss to see. I will not stop now to 
comment at length upon the subject, but leave 
you and the country to determine for your- 
selves. I will add, however, that, if the Mis- 
souri compromise was both " unjust" and " un- 
constitutional," depriving the South of her legal 
and constitutional rights, as the Journal here says 
itdid, how, in the name of reason, justice, and 
the Constitution, could it be either unwise or im- 
proper to repeal it? It certainly cannot be wrong 
to do justice to all, and maivtain the Constitution. 

What next? In June, 1855, the great Know 
Nothing party met in Pliiladelphia and passed 
the following resolution, known as the twelfth 
section, which is as follows: 

"XII. The American party, having arisen upon the ruins 
and in spite of the opposition of the Whig and Democratic 
parties, cannot be held in any manner responsible for the 
obnoxious acts or violated pledges of either. And the sy.f- 
tematic agilation of the slavery question by tliose parties 
having elevated sectional hostility into a positive clement 
of poliiical power, and brought our institutions into peril; 
It has, therefore, become the imperative duty of the Ameii- 
ean party to interpose for the purpose of giving peace to the 
country, and perpetuity to the Union. And, as experience 
has shown it impossible to reconcile opinions so extreme as 
rjiose which separate the disputants ; and as there can be 
no dishonor in submitting to the laws, the National Council 
has deemed it the best guarantee of common ju-tice and of 
future peace, to olii'fe l>y and mainliiin the cxiitin^ taurs 
upon the suhjcct of slavery, as a fimd and conclusive sctUe- 
tnent of thnl sulijecl. in spirit and in substance. And re- 
garding it the highest duty to avow their opinions upon a 
subject so important, in distinct and unequivocal terms, it 
is hereby declared, as the sense of this National Council, 
that Congress possesses no power under the Constiiution, 
tolegi-lale upon the subject of slavery in the States where 
it does or may cxi>t. orlo exclude any State from admission 
into the Union because its constitution does or does not 
recogtiize the institution of slavery as a part of its social 
system ; and expressly pretermittiiigany exi)ression of opin- 
ion upon the power of Congress to establish or proliibit 
slavery in any Territory,— it is the sense of the National 
Council, that Congress ought not to legislate upon the sub 
ject of slavery within the territory of the United States, and 
that any interference by Congress with slavery as it exists 
in the District of Columbia, would be a violation of the spirit 
and intention of the compact hv which the State of Mary- 
land ceded the District to the United States, and a breach 
of the national faith." 

Now, the Kansas-Nebraska bill, repealing the 
Missouri compromise line, had become a law, 
before this famous twelfth section was adopted. 
Then, sir, this section solemnly pledged Mr. 
Fillmore and every Know Nothing in the Union, 
the Louisville Journal included, "to abide by 
and maintain the existing laws (the Kansas- 
Nebraska bill) upon the subject of slavery, as 
a final and conclunve settlement of the subject, 
inspirit and in substance." How can Mr. Fill- 
more now, without violating his pledge thus 
given, characterize that act as a " reckless and 
unwis-j policy" — the " result of a selfish ambi- 
tion " — a " wa<*ton disturbance " — a " Pandora's 
box.'" Why, sir, if the Kansas-Nebraska act 
be all that Mr. Fillmore now says it is, why did 
he and his party, the Louisville Journal included, 
pledge themselves, at Philadelphia, in June, 1855, 
to " abide by and maintain it.'" Why did they 



do it .' I will leave them and the country to 
say. 

Well, sir, if Mr. Fillmore and his party can 
meet in June, 1855, and pledge themselves to the 
country " to abide by and maintain all the existing 
laws on slavery," and then meet in February, 
1856, and repudiate and denounce the existing 
laws on slavery, how can they ask tlie country, 
and expect the country, to believe they are in 
favor of the existing laws on slavery .' Now, Mr. 
Chairman, read this twelfth section, ))lfdging 
Mr. Fillmore and his whole party, to " abide by 
and maintain" the Kansas-Nebraska bill, "in 
spirit and in substance." Then read the thir- 
teenth section in their present new platform, 
denouncing that bill, for repealing the Missouri 
compromise line, and say vvhat right tliey have to 
talk aljout " obnoxious acts or violated pledges." 
Read these, and then say, who has kept the faith. 
Then .say if Mr. Fillmore and his party have not 
forfeited all claim to nationality, conservatism, 
and consistency. Read the articles in the Louis- 
ville Journal, and then say if Mr. Fillmore is 
willing to restore the " injustice" and outrage per- 
petrated upon the South, by the passage of the 
Missouri compromise line. Read them, and 
say if the Kans.\s-Nebr.\ska bill shall not 
STAND. Read these, and then say if Mr. Buch- 
anan is not the only candidate now upon the 
track for the Presidency, who has been firm, 
conservative, and consistent, throughout. Read 
these, and say if Mr. Fillmore has stood by the 
resolutions of his party, passed at Baltimore in 
1852, '^in spirit and in substance," then say if he 
has stood, and still .stands by the famous twelfth 
section, pledging him to maintain the existing 
laws upon slavery. Read them all, and then tell 
me where the obnoxious acts and violated pledges 
are, where the true, conservative, constitutional 
grounds are — whether with the old Whig and 
Democratic parties, or with the new intensely 
Jlmerican party? 

Now, see the very striking contrast, in the 
consistency of the old-line Whigs and the Demo- 
cratic party, and the Know Nothing party. In 
1850, the Democrats and Whigs voted for the 
coinpromise measures as a principle. In 1852 they 
indorsed them as right. In 1854 they carried 
them out, in spirit and in substance, by the pas- 
sage of the Kansas-Nebraska bill. In 1855 they 
maintained and defended them. In 1856 they 
have started a candidate for the Presidency, who 
is for them, out and out— in all their length and 
breadth, heighth and depth — in spirit and in sub- 
stance. I will, now, sir, leave you and the coun- 
try to determine who is right, and who wrong; 
who worthy, and who unworthy; who has kept 
the faith, and who has broken the faith; who shall 
be the next President — Fremont, Fillmore, or 
Buchanan. 

I desire now to give you what one of Mr. 
Buchanan's ablest and nriost distinguished oppo- 
nents, the Hon. George Robertson, of Kentucky, 
said of him and his position, in a public speech, a 
few days since, in my own State. The following 
statement in relation to his speech I clip from a 
Kentucky paper: 

''A Candid Adjiissiox. — The Hon. George Robertson^ 
in a public speech at Keene, Jessamine county, on Satur- 
day last, declared that Mr. Buchanan was an able and ex- 
perienced statesman, an honoralde gentleman, a patriot^ 
firm, reliable, ajidsound on the slavery question, and that Hit 



8 



country trould te fnj'e in his hands. Fie s.tid he did iifit in- 
tend to aitack liiiri cm ;iiiy nf lliesr pninL". He was a gnod 
mail, ariti a sali' man, anil no man could deny it." 

This, sir, is what Mr. Buclinnan's enemies have 
aaid of him, liis position and principles. 

And I will now give you wlial one of Mr. 
Fillmore's at present warm personal, ajid form- 
erly political, friends says of him, his platform, 
and his jiarty. It is from one who knows what 
he is talking aljout, and understands what he 
says. The following is an extract from the letter 
of Mr. Bnrwfll to his constituents, resigning his 
seat in the House of Delegaliis in Virginia, to 
which he had been elected by the Know Nothing 
party. Mr. Hurwell was the former editor of the 
American Organ, in this city, and also of the Re- 
public, Mr. Fillmore's organ while President. 
The extract is as follows: 

" RepardinK the qtip.>iiinn of slavery as paramount to all 
others bel'ori- the AnnTican people, saii-fied that the Whig 
party of the Nm lli had lused willi the Kree-Soilers, and that 
the Democratic- parly was paralyzed hy its own (h.-^.-^ension^i, 
I had, with many otlurs, sou^hi in die American parly a 
love of UiMon, a fraternal afl'eclion, and a national pride, 
which should reconcile and quiet forever the differences 
existing among us. 

"The first naiional action of this party encouraged the 
hope that it would realizi! this patriotic expectation. It 
announced in June, I8.'>5, that it would maint.tin the exist- 
ing le!^i^lKtion upon the suJijeel of sl.-tvery as a settlement 
of Uie question. I'lider this declaration some tliirty-tbree 
members of Congress were elected by the Aiitcrtcan party 
in the southern Slates. 

" In February, iyo6, this policy was changed. The 
pledge to mainiain exi>liiig legislation wa<; substituted by | 
a creed, in which not only the subject, but the name of | 
'slavery' is carefully ignored. The guarantee for the admis- 
rioii of new slave t^tales, specifically given by the deelara- ! 
tion of 1865, is replaced by an article which recogniz^'s I 
Uie right of the legal citizens of a Territory ' to fra'iie their j 
constitnlion and laws, find to regulate their own domestic 
and social alVairs in their own mode, subject only to'— the 
Wilmot proviso, or to ' the provi.-ions ol' the Federal eoiisli- 
tution,' which last phrase, under the interpretation of the 
dominant inajoriiy in Congress, means precisely the same 
tiling. Willi iliis ri--trielion the privilege; of admission into 
the Union is granted to the territorial State whenever it 
shall 'have the requisite pupulation for one Representative 
in Congress.' 

" At the same time, and upon the same principle of neu- 
Iralily. the .Aincric-in parly iioniiiiated lor its candidate a 
gentleman of inie;>rily and patrioiisni, but it did nut require 
nim to .~ny wln-ihiTlie would, if elected, vi-toa bill restoring 
the Mi-isoiiri reslrielion,or repealing ilic Kansas act. Those 
who have regarded Ihe pending question too important lo 
be left ill duiibl. havi; hiM>ii iiil'ornied that the numiiiee is 
' plaKorin enough,' and that his pi-f ollieial acts afford a 
guflieient a>>iirance of his future. Taking his sijnature of 
the coiiipromiseof IS.'iO its the iiio<l proniinenl of these acts, 
wc en''ounler iii:-iiriMounlable ditrieulties of eon^triieiion. 
The fri<*iiils of the Kaiisa..ael eoiiieiid that ii is a legit male 
dodu<-lion from the coinpromise of IK'>0; hut Ihousaiids 
who advocated that eompromise assert that ttie Kansas act 
u a (laurant violation of that me.asiiie. If the iiil"ereiice, 
that the Kansas act re-iilled fioiiilhe compromise, is inev 
liable, there eoiild be no controversy upon this .subject. Hut 
tlicre is a radieal ditt'ereiiei! upon this subject ; therel'ore the 
poitilion of the American nominee upon this question is 
iloiiblful ; .'iiiil tlHtse who are di>|M>seil lo support him may, 
tvillioul iiii|iii'jiMiiL' his iiilegrity, ask In- eonsiruotioii upon 
Uie eoii>i-leiii-y ol' ilie Kansas act with the eompromise of 
IfViO, and will tlier il is his purpose to niainlitiii or repeal it. 
Until some such i|.-el:irnlion sli:ill be mule, the Americans 
of the Soiiih are wholly wilhnul assurance against the coii 
tinned aiiiiilion of ii daiig'TOUs qiieslion. or of having li jlits, 
deemed by them invaluable, surrendered by the actof llieir 
own re|)reseiitQlives. 

"Tins issue upon which fmrties have organized for tin; 
ensuing eaiiipai:;ii is : • Shall any more slave States be ail- 
milled into the Union r' 

" Koreniiol and most formidable in this contest sUind.' 
Uie lllaek Kepnblicaa party, a dangerous eniiipound of 
Ikaaticism and iHiliiieal cupidity. It is nuiix'roiis.and of 
powerful rc^ourcci ; it i;> led by ainbiliou:) and sa^^acioiu 



men. It intends to employ the jiumber.s of the North to 
subjugate the Sonili and govern tlie country, lis material 
of warfare con>i^ts in impeaching the title of your property, 
defaming your character, and combining the most di'spotie 
and lawless influences in a crusade against you. Its plan 
, of warfare is to cut otT the supplier and ctnnmunictitions of 
slavery, to invest its citadel and lo send in a flag inscribed ; 
'.•\ssault or unconditional surrender." 

"Tlie Deinoeralie [xirly has been, by force of circum- 
stances, placeil ill direct aniasonisin to this [rirty. Il stands 
not only ple<lged. but ciniiuiitted beyond tlie power of r«v- 
cantaliun or withdrawal, to maintain yuur ri;:!!!;- a:i poUticaJ 
equals in this Confederacy. 

•' Willi my opinions, neulrality would be at Ibis import- 
ant crisis litile tx'tter than treiison. I shall, therefore, vote 
for the Democratic candidates at the ensuing presidential 
electiiin,- Itecause that is the only iKirly coniniitted to assert 
the rights of the South, aud because the opinions avowed 
by that party ujion the subject of slavery represent ray 
own." 

This is the Ictterof a distinguished gentleman, 
who knows all about Mr. Fillmore and his plat- 
form, and he says neither will do for the present 
crisis. 

Now, Mr. Chairman, I will add but a word 
more on this part of the suliject. I haveshownr 
by Mr. Buchanan's speeches, by his votes, by 
his history, by his platform, by what his friends 
and l)y what his enemies say about him, that he 
stands straight out, sr^Tiarc^ up) without equivoca- 
tion, evasion, or pretermission, on the slavery 
question, which is the issue, the great paramouni 
issue, now before the country, and which has to 
be settled, for weal or woe, and it may be, for 
life or death, in the coming presidential contest. 
I have shown Mr. Buchanan to be sound, con- 
servative, national. What is Mr, FilUnore's 
position.' He stands on a platform as silent as 
the grave, on the great, the paramount is3ue now 
before the country, shaking il from its center to 
its circumference; not oi>e word, nor one letter 
in it about slavery, or the adju-stment of the 
slavery question; not able or willing, now, to say 
himself, or to sulVer any friend to say for him, 
whellu^r, if eli cied, he would or would not np- 

Crove the Wilmot proviso, if it should be applied 
y Congress to the Territories. Not able or will-' 
ingnow to say, nor any of his friends for him, 
whether, if Congress should restore the Missouri 
compromise liiii.', he would or would not veto it. 
Not able or willing now to say, nor any of his 
friends for him, whether, if C^onirress were to 
repeal all the exisiing laws on slavery, the fugi- 
tive slave law included, he would or would noi 
veto that bill. Why, sir, in order to be consid- 
ered orlhodox with all parlies, and on both sides, 
he has receiiily concluded to take no side upon 
any subject connected with sKwiry. In order to 
conquer both the other parties, he has agreed to 
fight tieither. In order to gel all sides, he has 
ajjreed lo take no side. In order to aid and sus- 
tain the Souili, he has agreed not to fight the 
North. In order to aid the Norlh,he hiis;igreed 
not to fighi the South. He has agreed, in his 
iilalforin, to occupy no position, for the present, 
if you will only give him tly hi;;h position of iha 
While House liexiNovember. Ves,sir,alilunigh 
he has said, in his luie letter, which I havo 
read, that he was opposed lo the aiinexatioD 
of Texas, unless* slavery was abolished there, 
and in favor of passing laws for the imniediaUs 
abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia., 
and for the abolition of the inter-Stale slave trade, 
&c.; although he and his whole party, in June, 
ISJo, agreed and pledged themselves in the twelfth 



9 



section of the Philadelphia platform, *' to abide 
by and maintain all the then existing laws on 
tslavery as a final and conclusive settlement of 
that question;" yet, sir, when this great slavery 
issue is novv^ thrust upon the country, and raging 
to its highest possible pitch; when the Black 
Republican party in the North, tauntingly and 
defiantly, say to the South, "Our armies are in 
the field; corne on, Macduff; the lines are drawn; 
no more compromises are to be made, and no 
more slave States are to be admitted into the 
Union;" yet, sir, notwithstanding all this, not- 
withstanding the Union is shaken to its center, 
and the whole Government reels to and fro like a 
drunken man, yet Mr. Fillmore and his party, 
regardless of all former pledges, choose now to 
ignore, evade, and pretermit the whole question, 
from beginning to end, and yet ask us to believe 
them the soundest party in the Union, on the sla- 
very question. Good souls, they are afraid to say 
anything for fear of making a /wss .' Yes, sir, they 
are afraid of agitation — of making a fuss, as they 
term it. Why, sir, ask a Know Nothing in my 
district if he is for the Kansas-Nebraska act, and 
he will at once respond by saying, " The old Pope 
of Rome will take the country." Ask him if he 
is for the Wiimot proviso, or the fugitive slave 
law, or non-intervention, or anything connected 
with the slavery question, and his response is, 
*' Why, the foreigners will take the country." 
Yes, sir, they make a great noise about foreigners 
and Catholics for office, when there is not a soli- 
tary man in the United States, of any party, and 
never has been, advocating either for office, to the 
exclusion of natives or Protestants. But when 
they come to the great question of slavery, they 
are as silent as the grave. 

Mr. Chairman, why all this clap-trap about 
foreigners and Catholics .' and all this ignoring, 
evasion, and pretermission about slavery and 
the constitutional rights of the South ? If Mr. 
Fillmore is for the Kansas-Nebraska bill, why 
does he not say so? If his party are for it, why 
do they not speak out in their platform ? If he 
is against the application of the Wiimot proviso 
to the Territories, why does he not take his 
stand? If he will veto a restoration of the Mis- 
souri compromise line, why does he not speak 
out? Why does he not take position upon one or 
the other side of all these great questions, and 
let every one know where he stands ? Sir, we 
want no non-committal candidate for the Presi- 
dency now. We want no milk-and-cider, wishy- 
washy, shally-shanty, canny-canty, sort of man 
for the present crisis. We want a man who is 
not afraid of the light — one who will speak out — 
who will say what he is for, especially upon a 
subject of such paramount importance. Sir, a 
man who is imivilling to say what he thinks right 
in such a crisis, cannot administer the Govern- 
ment. He who is afraid to say what he thinks 
right, is unfit to administer the Government; but 
it does not suit the Know Nothing plan of ope- 
rations to speak out. It is contrary to their tac- 
tics. They commenced in the dark — they must 
continue in the dark. Tliey must ignore, evade, 
and pretermit, to save a/its ■,• and say nothing, and 
dodge around, tojumpin beween two fires. Their 
positions and doctrines are like their great leader, 
*' Sam," who looked bcauti ul in the dark where 
you could not see him, but when brought to the 
* 



day, and the lighl of truth suffered to fall upon him , 
was found to be, all over, full of wounds, bruises, 
and putrifying sores. Their doctrines, under the 
cover of secrecy, and the high-sounding phrase 
of "Americans shall rule America," all sounded 
and seemed very v/ell; bvit when brought out to 
view, and wa- were told how these Americans 
were to rule America, the whole thing was found 
to be a system of absurdities, injustices, and im- 
practicabilities, not one single principle of which 
can be carried out practically, by an act of Con- 
gress, without first changing the Constitution of 
the United States, which fact I now propose to 
show, having said all I desired to say as to the 
relative positions of Mr. Buchanan and Mr. Fill- 
more on the slavery question. 

What, then, are the prominent, distinctive fea- 
tures of Know Nothingism? They are these: 

1. No man, for any office, State or national, 
itnless he be a native-born American citizen, in 
favor of Americans ruling America, nor if he be 
a Roman Catholic. 

2. An extension of the naturalization laws to 
twenty-one years' residence, in order to citizen- 
ship; and an enforcement of the principle, that 
no State orTerritorycan admitothers than native- 
born citizens to the right of suffrage or of hold- 
ing political office, unless such persons shall have 

j been naturalized according to the laws of the 
United States; and the exclusion of paupers and 
criminals. 
|, These, Mr. Chairman, I believe, are the dis- 
Ij tinctive prominent principles of the Know Noth- 
ing party. I will commence with the last of them 
j I first. 

In regard, then, to the exclusion of paupers 
jl and criminals from our shores. I suppose there 
is not a man in all the length and breadth of this 
great Confederacy, in favor of bringing that class 
ijof persons here; besides, the States have the 
i power now, and always have had, as sovereigns, 
j to exclude them from their borders. But as to 
I Congress having the power to say who shall, or 
I who shall not, be an inhabitant, a resident, or a 
citizen of any particular State, they have no such 
[ power, because the Slates have never surrendered 
I it, or delegated it to Congress. Congress, there- 
r fore, could do nothing without the consent of the 
; States upon the subject. But if any eflfort was 
j about being made by any foreign Power to force 
jla large number of this class of persons upon 
I any one or more of these States, against their 
ii will, and the State or States were not able to pre- 
j vent it for the want of material aid, then, sir, I 
[I would be willing to lend all the power of the 
j General Government to aid in their expulsion. 
I But there can be no controversy upon this sub- 
ject, as no one is in favor of their coming here. 
[[ I come now to the second proposition, which 
[is to change the present naturalization law so as 
I to require hereafter a residence of twenty-one 
' years before a foreigner can either become a cit- 
il izen of the United States, or vote, or hold aU'j 
l\ offic^n the Government, State or J^ationaL And 
1] that no State in the Union " can" allow them 
either to vote or hold office in the State on any 
j other terms. 

jl This proposition, Mr. Chairman, contains two 
I; clear and distinct principles, and claims theexer- 
I cise of two separate, distinct, and independent 
i, powers — the one of which, taken by itself, is 



10 



legal, constitutional, and practicable; while the 
otlier, or rather the two together, as a compound, 
identical proposition, is wholly impracticable, un- 
constitutional, and subversive of the sovereignty 
and independence of the States, striking at tlie 
Tery foundations of our free institutions. 

I admit that Congress has plenary power, under 
the existing Constitution, to establish a uniform 
rule of naturalization, fixing the time and terms 
upon which a foreigner may become either a 
citizen of the Unii"d States, or hold office under 
the General Goverj)ment. But I deny that Con- 
gress has any power, under the present Con- 
stitution, to say citiier who shall or who shall 
not vote, or who shall or who shall not hold office 
in any of the States of this Union . Congress has 
no power to dictate to the States what they shall 
do on either of these subjects — none, sir, none 
■whatevt r. The Stales have no right to pass laws 
respectingthenatuialization of foreigners, saying 
how or when they may be made citizens of the 
United States— tJiis power has been expressly 
delegated to Congress; nor has Congress the 
power to pass laws fixing the time either to vote 
or hold office in the Slate — this power is reserved 
to the States. The Constitution of the United 
States says, "Congress shall have power to es- 
tablish a uniform rule of naturalization," but 
stops there. It does not go on to say that Congress 
shaJi also have power to say how long a foreigner 
or any other person shall live in a State before he 
may cither vote or hold office; nor does the Con- 
stitution give to Congress any power whatever 
over the qualification of the voter in the State, in 
any shape or form, or to any extent; this power 
is all reserved to the States, and being reserveti 
to the States, it would be a usurpation in Con- 
gress to attempt to exercise any control over it, 
as the Know Nothing party contend in this prop- 
osition. 

But, sir, let us see what would be the practical 
result of this Know Js'othinglaw, denying to the 
Suites the power, and declaring thty shall not exer- 
cise the right of letting any inhabitant of the State 
either vote or hold oificc, "unless he complies 
•with the laws of Congress." To illustrate. Sui>- 
pose the people of Kentucky, on account of some 
distinguished .service rendered, oroii any account, 
■were to elect some fonign-born citizen, not nat- 
uralized, Governor of that State: do you think 
Uiat he could be put out of Kis office by an act of 
Congress.' Do you think thai, if he were required 
by an act of Congress to vacate hi.i officf , and 
was to refuse, tiiat th.- President would attempt, 
by an armed force or otiurwi.s.-, lo remove him.' 
Do you think that there is any power anywhere 
ill this great Government to remove him, except 
in that State? lint again: suppose the State of! 
Kentucky were to fix in ht r organif law, that a 
foreigner might vote in any oft he counties, towns, 
or voting piecineis in that State, in three months, 
or three days, or even in tliree hours, next pre- 
ceding tlie election: do you think that Congress, 
under tin present ('onstitution of tlie li|itfd 
States, has the power to pass a law nquiring 
Iwenly-one years, and compel the people of Ken- 
tucky, again.Ht their will, to change that constitu- 
tion in conformity to the law of Congres.x.' Do 
you think Con£;re»s iia." any sui-h })ower us this, 
under tjie Constitution? What, sir, C'oUL'ress 
removf our Governor because, forsooth, he was 



not born in the right place, or had not lived there 
long enough to suit the peculiar notions of Con- 
gress, before the people elected him? But, sup- 
pose him thus removed, who would fill his place ? 
The people would elect no one else , and who would 
fill his place ? Has Congress the power to turn out 
the'Governor of Kentucky , and then say who shall 
fill his place? If so, where is all our State sover- 
eignty.' Gone, sir, gone; perfectly wiped out for- 
ever. The States, in place of being separate , inde- 
Eendent , sovereign Stales, clothed with all the attri- 
utcs of sovereignly, and power, and capabilities 
I of self-government, would be mere dependencies, 
holding whatever of power they might be per- 
' mittcd to exercise as tenants at the trill of Con- 
; gress. Why, sir, let any party or any President, 
I let Congress or let any other executive or any 
other legislative body in the Union, attempt the 
exercise of such a power in this country, under 
j the existing Constitution, and nothing short of a 
bloody revolution would be the result. 

Wliile, then, I admit that Congress has plenary 
j power, under the present Constitution, to change 
the naturalization laws, and require any length of 
residence deemed best by Congress for a foreigner 
to become a citizen of the United Slates, or to 
hold office under tlie General Government, I main- 
' tain that the Stales have the right, have fiill power, 
I under the Constitution of the United States, un- 
; restrained, and unrestrainable, by any act of Con- 
gress, to allow foreigners to vote or hold office 
in the Stale, whether they have been naturalized 
' or not. And to sustain this opinion, 1 desire lc» 
I read an extract from a speech of the Hon. Garret 
Davis, one of the ablest lawyers and most pro- 
' found jurists in the Slate of Kentucky. He ia 
I one of the most distinguished members of the 
' Know Nothing party in the Union, and was, as 
; I understand, tiic choice of the southern wing of 
the party in place of Mr. Fillmore. While I 
, think him entirely in error on the subject of his 
new political creed, yet 1 Anoir him to be a man of 
] firmness, integrity, and ability, and, in my judg- 
i ment, his opinions on the subject of tiie rights 
' and privileges of the Slates, and the powers of 
j Congress under the Conslit\ition of tlie United 
I States, are entitled to as liigli consideration as any 
member of his partij in the Union. The speech, 
from which 1 read, was delivered by Mr. Davis, 
' in the late Kentucky Constitutional Convention, 
upcin the very question I am now discussing, it 
' was to insert 111 the new constitution of Keuiucky 
a clause requiring of foreigners a residence of 
twenty-one years before they should vote or hold 
office in the State. In 8]K'aking to this subject, 
Mr. Davis said: 
I " I presiinu', Mr. rresideiit. Itn-re can be no doobt upon 
' tlie ixiirit ololir e<>ni|M'teiK-y luul n^flit lo ael K^ioii IliU .--itb- 
jeet ; niiil nUo of our iliily to net U|»>n it. il' by so ildjiijj we 
! cnn ell'fcl any esseiilinl cixwl fur Itie coiiiilry. Coiutrcss lia» 
llii- iMiwer. iiikI Iiiw |Kisseil aaiiiriiliKiiiiin lnw^ ; and it ha;* 
tn-eii .■issiiiiied ilial ii utiuid iiitniici.' the njiliu- of ilie I'or- 
eiuiHTs who have Iwvii iiiitiif.ili/.eil iu euiiioniiity to the 
liriiM.-'ionM of ihosp laws, for the ^^Inles to jjre:-cril« any 
olher or iiilditioiiiil re>triolions totlieir e\eri-ise (»t"lhe rlffht 
I i>l%iill'ra(;p in the Slaw ijoveriiiMeiits. It a|>|<i-ar.s to me tiidt 
; lhi~ |UHitioii >.'< vvliolly taU.'icioiLi mil! niilenable. 'J1l<! Stales 
' have the right to eoi'ili r upon l"orei;;aii> i)i. eU'Cllvc frarn 
i-hi«e. anil to make theiii elvsiWe |o nil ilie offices of their 
ituveiiiiiii'iil,' Ix'Tore haiiiratizjilioii, nnii they have tliie niv 
I iloiilitcci (xiirer lo e\i'luile theiT\. iililioii^h Uiey hn^e be- 
! couie ciii/.eiis of the riiiiiil t=t.<l' •< : iH'eaiise .-iM-h caixeiH 
. slii|> coni'tTs upon ilieiii only llii' ri<rliis oitlia! p.ivcrnment, 
coiicrdeil hy iIm- I'l'doral » 'oiislininon, anrt not a Mngle one 
Under any State goveriiinciu." . • . "Tb« 



11 



States are sovereicu in forming and administering tlieirown | 
governments. They may deny to naturalized foreigners j 
wholly the right of suft'rage, and the privilege of holding , 
office ; or they may confer both class of rights f<illy,or with 
such restrictions, "as to time and otlier circumstances, as 
Xliey may will." j 

Now, sir, you will at once see that Mr. Davis, 
in this extract, concedes what I concede, and j 
maintains what I maintain, to wit: that Congress j 
has plenary power to establish a uniform rule of 
naturalization!, fixinsj the terms for a foreigner to 
become a citizen of the United States, but has 
no power to enforce said law upon the States — no 
right to interfere with the States in any manner, j 
or to any extent, in saying who shall vote or 
hold office therein. That he completely annihil- 
ates the idea in the Know Nothing platform, 
claiming that they have, or that Congress has, 
the pov/er to say where a man must be born, or 
how long he shall live in the United States, before 
he can vote or hold office in any of the States in 
the Union. He shows that the States not only 
have the pov/er to let foreigners vote and hold 
office in their own governments before naturali- 
zation, but that the whole subject rests with the 
States; and if the object be to keep foreigners 
from voting or holding office in any of the States 
of this Union, you must go to the States, and 
not to Congress. To sustain Mr. Davis in this 
position, I will refer you to the past action of 
both the General Government and the States 
upon this subject. The present naturalization 
!aw requires a residence of five years in the coun- 
try before a foreigner can become a citizen of 
the United States; yet nearly half the States in 
the Union allow them to vote now in from nine 
months to two years. 

Now, if the General Government cannot pre- 
vent foreigners voting m the States in twelve or 
twenty-four months, when the law of natural- 
ization requires five years, how could it be done 
by extending the time to twenty-one, or even to 
one hundred years .' The extension of the time 
of naturalization could never increase the power 
of Congress to enforce it in the Slates. 

But this position assumed by the Know Noth- 
ing party, that Congress has the power to pre- 
vent the States of this Union from letting a man 
vote or hold office in the State until he has com- 
plied with the law of Congress, would, if car- 
ried out, work ruin to the Slates, and the people 
of the States, in a very different way. If the 
power to prevent a man from voting or holding 
office in the State, because of the want of birth 
or residence, be in Congress, then the power to 
prevent a man from voting or holding office for 
the want of properly is in Congress; the power 
to prevent a man from voting or holding office for 
the v/ant of land enough, or slaves enough, or 
money enough, or blood enough, or age enough, 
is in Congress; and the whole question of the 
qualification of the voters, and of persons for hold- 
ing office in the State, would be in Congress. 
Sir, I will not stop here to comment further upon 
what might be the ruinous results- of such a 
power concentrated into the hands of a Know 
Nothing or a Black Republican Congress. I 
know the Kno\v Nothings say now, that no man 
shall have any office in the Government, State or 
National, if ihey can prevent it, unless he will 
join their parly or preach their doctrines. The 
Black Republicans say the same; and it might 



be, that they, if they had the power, would let 
no man vote who would not vote the way they 
might think right. At any rate, I am for keeping 
the wiiole power where it is, where italways has 
been, and where, I trust, it never will cease to 
be — in the hands of the peoi-le. 

I come now, Mr. Chairman, to the first and 
essential feature in the Know Nothing creed as 
taught in my district. It is this: they write out, 
subscribe to, and take a solemn oath to support 
the following proposition: 

" That they will vote for no man for any office, State or 
National, who is not a native-horn American citizen, in 
favor of Americans ruling America, nor if he be a Roman 

Catholic.'''' 

This is the doctrine, sir, which the Know 
[Nothings propagate in my distriu; this is the 
doctrine to which they subscribed, and whicH 
they took a solemn oath to support, and this is 
the doctrine which I think unwise, unjust, un- 
; constitutional, intolerant, proscriptive, revolu- 
tionary, at war v/itli the highest precepts of our 
j holy religion, and in contravention ot the great 
i essential principles of Protestant Christianity. 
It is unwise because it militates against the best 
; interest of both Church and State, by exciting 
jealousies, discords, and ill-will between the na- 
' tive-born and naturalized, Protestant and Roman 
Catholic communities, when there should be only 
confidence, concord and good will. It is un- 
just, because it draws an invidious distinction 
"between native-born Catholics and Protestants — 
granting to one all the privileges guarantied by 
the Constitution, and withholding them from the 
other — to wit, eligibility to office. The Constitu- 
tion makes both eligible; Know Nothingism but 
one. It is unconstitutional, because it ntiakes the 
naturalized citizen, and the native-born Roman 
Catholic citizen ineligible to office, when the 
Constitution makes them both eligible. It 
makes religion a test for every office, State or 
National, when the Constitution says no reli- 
j gious test shall be required for any office under 
the United Slates. It is intolerant, because it 
I does not allow a man to worship God as he 
j pleases, without curtailing his privileges, if he 
i become a Roman Catholic. It is proscriptive, 
because it pltices the Roman Catholic and the 
naturalized citizen beyond the protection afforded 
I by the Constitution, of eligibility for office, and 
! denounces them as dangerous and unworthy. It 
I is revolutionary, because, if successful, it nullifies 
the Constitution, and makes it a dead letter. It 
I does that, indirectly, by a secret oath-bound polit- 
I ical organization, which they cannot, and which 
j they dare not, attempt to do by positive law. 
j It is at war withthe highest precepts of our holy 
I religion, because it violates that golden rule — 
i that rule of rules — laid down by the Savior of the 
I world, when he said: "Do unto others as ye 
I would they chould do unto you; and whatso- 
i ever ye would that men should do unto you, do 
j ye even so to them." This is the rule upon which 
our Savior said rested the law and the prophets; 
and this is the rule that this Know Nothing plank 
violates. They persecute and proscribe Catho- 
lies, when they themselves would rather be burned, 
j and would be burned at the stake, before they 
would suffer tlie Catholics to organize in this 
country and do, or endeavor to do, just what they 
are doing or endeavoring to do themsaJves. I 



12 



know, they say thai they do not call it proscrip- 
tion; neitlier do the Black Republican party call 
it proscription whtn they say to us of the South, 
that they want us tn furnish men and money, 
blood and trt-asure, to purchi\se and acquire large 
tracts of territory, and thun say to us: "Why, 
you cannot enter upon any of this territory unltss 
you give up your slavc-s. It is all dedicated to 
freedom. Freedom is national and slavery sec- 
tional; you cannot enter there." But, sir,! call 
it proscription of the deepest, darkest, aiid most 
objectionable character. I call it unjust, revolu- 
tionary. I know thi y deny that they proscribe 
Catholics; but I ask you, Mr. Chairman, I ask 
them, and I ask the country, what would be the 
result if tiny would strike out of their creed 
the word Roman Catholic, and insert the word 
Baptist? I ask you, what would be the instan- 
taneous result, if they were to do that.= Why, 
sir, the whole country would be in a blaze in a 
week. I ask you, then, what the result would 
be if they were to strike out Roman Catholic from 
their^creed and insert Presbyterian. = Where would 
the Know Nothing party stand, oven in one day's 
time, and what would be the state of feeling pro- 
duced by such an organization.' Why, the fire 
of discord would flash like electricity from one 
end of the Government to the other. Well, let 
them then strike out Roman Catholic from their 
creed and insert Methodist, and how long would 
it be before we should see a war commenced in this 
country, the end of which no man could foresee .- 
Then, sir, if that is not enough, let me ask my 
colleague and you, Mr. Chairman, and the coun- 
try, suppose all the churches in llie United Slates 
were to form themselves into just such a secret, 
oath -bound, political organization as the Know 
Nothings now have, and have it written in a con- 
stitution as they now have it written in their 
constitution, and swear, as they have sworn, 
about the Catholics and naturalized citizens, that 
not a man in the United Stales, no matter how 
good or how great, no matter how pious or how 
patriotic, should ever have any office in the Gov- 
ernment, State or National, unless he belonged 
to some one of these churches: how long do you 
think, sir, it would be before " American blood 
would be shed upon American soil.'" How long, 
under an organization like this, would it be before 
every purling, babi)ling streamlet and rill in our 
land, the waters of which now run so limpid and 

Cure, would be crimsoned with the blood of our 
rothers.' Sir, to use a strung phrase, 1 think it 
would be immediately, if not soom r. Ai>d, why, 
Mr. Cliairman.' Why would the Know Nothing 
platform produce a revoluiion quicker with Ro- 
man Catliolics stricken out, and any other one 
of the Protestant denominations inserted.' Why 
would it produce revolution with all denomina- 
tions stricken out, and unbelievers in.sertcd.' There 
would be no change of principle, and why the 
revolution.' Why, sir, because the whole prin- 
ciple is wrong; because it is u just; because it is 
unconsiiiulional; because it would take from a 
large j)oriion of our fellow-citizeiis their birth- 
right, secured to ihem by the Constiiution and 
form of government won for lhen> by our rev- 
olutionary fathers. Well, sir, if it wt-uld be 
wrong as ajiplic^iblu to the Baptist, wrong as ap- 
plicable to the Presbyterian, wrong as applicable 
to the >^cthodist, and wrong as applicable to llie 



I great outside party, that are not members of any 
church, why, in the name of reason, in the name 
of justice, in the name of the Constiiution and 
the Bible, is it not wrong as appliciible to native- 
born Catholics and naturalized citizens.' Sir, it 
is all wrong. I am a native and a Protestant, and 

I I I enter, here, my protest against it as a native and 
I Protestant. I call upon Protestants and natives 
|,to enter their protest; to do unto the Catholic 

and naturalized citizen, as they wpuld have the 
Catholic and the naturalized citizen lo do unto 
them. 

The great distinctive idea, the great essential 
principle, which gave to Mariin Luther all his 
greatness and glory, his religion its popularity,, 
and the civilized world the glorious benefits of 
Protestant Christianity, was, that no man's civil 

j or political privileges should ever be either in- 
creased or diminished on account of his rehgious 
faith — that a man's religious faith was purely a 

, matter between him and his Maker, and that he 
should be left free upon that subject from any sort 
of restrictions or disiibilitiea, civil or political. It 
is this great principle that gave Martin Luther 

,, his influence, and his religion its power. It was 
its incontrovertible and irresistible truth — its 
impartial and inflexible justice — and its compre- 
hensive charity or universal benevolence, thai 
enabled it to revolutionize the religions of the Old 

I World. And being transplanted into the New, 
has given form and shape to this great Republic, 

j where, unrestrainingaud itself unrestrained, it lias 
' since continued to flourish and grow, and is now 
, flourishing, an undying evergreen, nourished and 
sustained by its own divine principle, the free- 
dom of religion and the equality of rights. Yes, 

I sir, it was this great, Uiis glorious principle, that 
won for Mariiii Luther a world-wide fame, and 
gave to his religion all its strength. It is this 

] very principle — yes, this very principle — that 
gives Protestantism its strength to-day. It is 

I this Very principle that has given our own Gov- 

, ernment, in lime past, its strength at home and 
abroad, and it is this very principle, and th'u ptin- 

I dpi t only, that Ciui make it imperishable. Give us 

ii freedom of thought, freedom of speech, freedom 

; of the press, freedom of religion, and equality of 
riglits, and, sir, I fear no danger. Our Govern- 
ment and her institutions would tlien be as im- 
perishable as our principles are true, just, and 
eternal. 

But they say the foreign-born citizen is un- 
faithful to his country — not to be trusted, in 
peace or in war, and that Catholics owe a higher 
allegiance to the Pope. Let me now allude very 

|. briefly to these two ideas. They say the nutural- 

I ized citizen must be forever ostracized and pro- 

I .scribed, because he is dangerous and untrust- 
worthy. They make no diflerence, no exception. 
No matter how brave, how wise, how pious, how 

! j)atriotic, the naturali::ed citizen may be. with one 

I tell swoop of Know Noihiiigism they all go down 
j together. Now, sir, I will say nothing of the gal- 

II lant De Kalb, nor Kosciusco, nor Steuben, nor 
1 1 of all those who have fought side by side with the 
j native in every battle from Boston lo California. 
li But, to show to what extremes of folly and 

injustice men may sometimes go, I will point 
you to the case of the immortal Shields, of Certo 
Gordo memory. Look at him, sir, in ihat greal 
battle! See hiiu in the midst of the fight, witix 



13 



his face to the foe! Witness his valorous deeds j, 
and heroic daring! See him fall, mortally j 
wounded as was supposed, bleeding at every j 
pore, and pouring his blood out like water in the J 
defense of the rights, the honor, and the glory of jl 
the American flag ! See him by his bravery, his ; , 
generalship, and liis deeds of daring, writing, in ' 
his own blood, one of the brightest pages in our, 
country's history ! See him, then, sir, here in the :| 
councils of the nation, as a Senator from a free [i 
State! Witness his votes, and see the conserv-jj 
atism and nationality of his political record!,'; 
Though from a fi-ee State, and abolitionism ,: 
threatening on every side — though born in a| 
foreign land, and only allied to us by adoption, j 
did he prove unfaithful to the Constitution and the I 
country.' Did he not, sir, in 1S50 — true to hisj, 
country and to her Constitution — true to every j 
State and every section — take his stand, side by 
side— with the venerable Cass, the giant Doug- :, 
las, the immortal Clay, the renowned Webster, | 
and though last yet not least, the great Pennsyl-I; 
vanian, the present gallant standard-bearer of the 
faithful old Democracy for the Presidency? Did 
he not again come up here, in 1854, and witJi ! 
Douglas, Cass, Dixon, and the conservative, | 
national men of every section and of all parties, 
unite in passing the Kansas-Nebraska bill,aiid; 
thus, true to his principles in 1850, carry out, in J 
spirit and in substance, the great doctrine of non- 
intervention and the right of self-government, 
the essential element of the compromise measures ^ 
of that year? This, sir, is his record, and yet | 
ihey say he cannot be trusted. Notwithstanding j 
all his valor and patriotism — notwithstanding 
all his faithfulness and service to his adopted 
country, he could not now, according to the doc- | 
trines of Know Nothingism and Black Repub- 1 
licanism be elected to the humblest office in the , 
Government, State or National. He has already | 
fallen a victim to both. Yes, to both. It was 
by the united vote of both the Black Republican , 
and Know Nothing parties, that General Shields, j 
with his conservatism and nationality, was turned , 
out of the Senate, and Judge Trumbull, with his • 
sectional, aboUtion, Black Republican doctrines, | 
put in. Yet, sir, these parties are calling upon ^ 
the country to discard all former political asso- , 
dations— all former pohtical principles, and join 
with them to put down such men as General, 
Shields, and to elevate to power such men as j 
Judge Trumbull. To put down the men who 
voted for the fugitive slave law, and the Kansas- 
Nebraska bill, in conformity to the Constitution — 
to secure the constitutional rights of all — and to 
put men in power who will repeal them both, or 
trample them like trash under their feet — sir, shall 
we do it? The people will decide in November 
next. , 

But the Know Nothings say that foreign-born 
naturalized citizens will prove treacherous in 
war; and to prove it in my district during the 
canvass they talked a great deal about the deser- 
tion of the legion of St. Patrick in the Mexican 
war. They say that that legion was composed of 
all foreigners, and Catholics at that, and that they 
deserted at the bidding of the Catholic priests in 
Mexico. Now, I was not there, and do not know 
exactly all that passed between the priests in 
Mexico and that legion; but, sir, I do noi be- 
lieve a word about their deserting on that account. 



The legion was composed of about two hundred 
men, about fifty only of whom were foreign-born, 
and the balance all natives of our own country; 
and as I find the Know Nothings mistaken as to 
who composed the legion, I feel constrained to 
believe they were mistaken also as to the cause 
of their deserting. I will read, in proof of what 
I have said, as to the persons composing that 
legion, an extract from the speech made in the 
late Kentucky Constitutional Conv.en'ion by Mr. 
Kelly. In speaking of the legion of St. Patrick, 
Mr. Kelly said, in reply to Mr. Davis, of Bour- 
bon: 

" Sir, the gentleman has spoken of the legion of St. Pat- 
rick, ill Mf.'xico. It was composed of soinetliing near two 
hundred men — thirty-six of whom were Irishmen, ten Ger- 
mans, two Frenchmen, and one Englishman — (I refer, sir, 
to the letters of Lieutenant Uenman, of the United States 
Army, and Lieutenant Cantwell, who»ftll at the Guata, a 
gallant son of the Palmetto State.) Who were the re- 
mainder? Native-boni Americans, I blush to own it." 

Now, sir, in regard to the faithfulness and 
valor of the foreign -born soldiery in the Mexican 
war and in the war of 1812-15, I will read the 
two letters of General Scott, who was on the 
ground, and is presumed to know all about it. 
These letters were published during the last 
presidential contest, and full credit given to them 
by all General Scott's friends then. They read 
as follows: 

Washington, March 1, 1851. 
Dear Sir: In reply to your kind letter of the 8th instant, 
I take pleasure in saying that, grateful for the partial esti- 
mate you place on my public services, you do me no more 
than justice in assuming that I entertain " kind and liberal , 
views toward our naturalized citizens." Certainly, it would 
be impossible for me to recommend or support any meas- 
1 ure intended to exclude them from a just and full partici- 
pation in all oivil and political rights now secured to them 
j Ijy our republican laws and institutions. 
] It is true that in a season ofunusual excitement, some 
! yesrs ago, when both parlies complained of fraudulent 
"practices in the naturalization of foreigners, and when there 
seemed to be danger that native and adopted citizens would 
be permaneirtly arrayed against each other in liostile fac- 
i tions, I was inclined to concur in the opinion, then avowed 
by many leading statesmen, that some modification of the 
naturalization laws might be necessary in order to prevent 
abuses, allay strife, and restore harmoiiy between the 
different classes of our people. But later experience and 
' reflection have entirely removed this impression, and dissi- 
pated my apprehensions. 

In my recent campaign in Mexico, a very large proportion 
of the men under my command were your couutryiuen, 
(Irish,) Germans, &.c. I witnessed with admira:ion their 
zeal, fidelity, and valor in maintmningourflagin the face of 
every danger. Vieing with each other and our native born 
j soldiers in the same" ranks in patriotism, constancy, and 
i heroic danger, I was happy to call them brothers in the 
j field, as I shall always be to serve them as countrymen at 
I home. 

I I remain, dear sir, with great esteem, vours trulv, 
1 WINFIELD SCOTT. 

William E. Robinson, Esq. 

Washington, March 11, 1851. 

Gentlemen : I have received your note inciting me to 
join vou at Philadelphia, in the celebration of the approach- 
ing St. Patrick's day— an honor which, I regret, the press of 
business obliges me to decline. 

You do me but justice in supposing me to feel a hvely in- 
terest in Ireland and her sons. Perl)aps no man, certainly 
no American, owes so much to the valor and blond of Irish- 
men as myself. Many of them marched and fought under 
my command in the "war of 181:2-1815, and many more — 
thousands— in the recent war with Mexico, not one of 
whom was ever known to turn his back upon the enemy or 
a friend. 

I salute you, gentlemen, with inv cordial respects, 

VVINFIELD SCOTT. 
R. Taler, C. McCaul^-, P. W. CoNROY,and J. McCenn, 

Esqs., Committee, Si'c., Ji'c. 



14 



But, sir, show the Know Nothings all this — 
show them that the foreign-born soldier is good and 
true, valorous and patriotic — show them that an 
extension of the naturalization laws to twenty-one 
years would be inoperative in the States without 
their consent— show ihem that the naturalization 
laws have nothing to do with the privilege of voting 
— that it only gives the foreigner the privilege of 
suing and being sued, inhibiting and transmit- 
ting property as native-born citizens do — and 
simply throws around him the protecting arm of 
the Governmental home and abroad — show them 
all this, and that the only way, under the exist- 
ing laws, that a foreigner can obtain the right to 
vote in this country is, from the State in which 
he may live — shew them all this, and satisfy them 
of its truth, prove it by their own friends, Mr. 
Davis and Genefal Scott, and yet they fly off 
and say, " I do not care, there are too many com- 
ing to our country, they will take up the public 
land from us and our children, and we must put 
a stop to it. If we do not, they will get all the 
good land, impoverish us and ourchiliren, over- 
run the country, and break down the Govern- 
ment." This is what they said last summer in 
my district. In answer to tliat Know Nothing 
argument, I will simply read an extract from the 
Newburg speech of the Know Nothing candidate 
for the Presidency, (Mr. Fillmore.) In, his New- 
burg speech, Mr. Fillmore says: 

" I have no hostility to foreigners ; I have witnessed their 
deplotahlc condition in the old country, nnd God forbid 
that I .should add to their sutlering l>y refusing them an asy- 
lum in this. 1 would throw the gates iriHe open, and ini-iie 
the oppressed of evi'ry hind to partake of the bhfssings of 
our laws and country. I would only exclude from this 
caiigration the paupt-'r and the erirninai." 

Now, sir, this is a curious speech for a Know 
Nothing to make — for a man who desired oreic- 

rcctcd to get Know Nothinir votes in my district, 
ran against the regular nominee of the Know 
Nothing party; the issues were all and fully 
made; the ground assumed was, that it was a 
war between Protestants and Catholics — natives ' 
and foreigners — that the Catholics belonged to the 
Pope, and the foreigners, if sulllred to come to 
the country, would take possession of all the rich 
lands in the West , and our children be left destitute. 
The cry there was "Down with the Catholics, and 
keep out the foreigners!" This was the ground 
assumed, and thistlicargunient used, by the Know 
Nothings in my district. Yes, sir, " lvee|» out the 
foreigners," was the constant, ceaseless cry, there 
and then made. And little did I think, that in the 
very first speech made by the Know Nothing 
candidate for the Pr< sidincy, he would join 
issue with his Know Nothing brethren in my 
part of the country. Little did 1 think, while 
nis friends in my part of the country were 
crying, " Shut the doors of immigration, and 
keep out all the foreigners!" that Mr. Fillmore, 
their candidate for the Presidency, would be, 
oil the other end of the Union, crying " Fling the 
doors wide (put and iini^c in all the foreigners of 
every kindred tribi- and tongue, exc. pi the crim- 
inals and paupers!" Little did 1 think, sir, 
while the Know Nothings in my district were 
traviliiig »igltt and day, gitiing up a party to 
keep the foreigners from coming hi-re to take all 
our fine roiinlrv, that their candidat.' for tin- 
presidency would be over here, in N< w York, 
getting up another party, to invite all the foreign- I 



ers in, especially, as he says, to "partake of the 
blessings" of this good country — the vtry bless- 
ings which the Know Nothings in my district 

I were endeavoring to save, as they said, for them- 
selves and their children. I tell you, Mr. Chair- 
man, this is a very curious speech for a Know 
Nothing to make, who wishes votes out my way. 
Now, sir, it is none of my business; but if I 
was allowed to advise a Know Nothing, I would 
advi.se Mr. Fillmore to take back that speech, or 
get his friends to call another big meeting, just aa 
they do when they go to change their old, or 
make a neic, platform; and let' him make it over, 
so that he might crowd it a little more with " ver- 
biage," and a little less with distinct, sensible ideas; 
knock out some of the prominent ideas altogether, 
or shake them together and mix tliem up in some 
way, so as to hide or cover up that pressing invi- 
tation he has given, and called God to witness it, 
to all the world and the rest of mankind, (except 
criminals and paupers,) to come over here and 

' enjoy just aa much o{ our fmt, rich lands as they 

; please. 

I tell you, Mr. Chairman, this is a dangerous 
Sf5eech to send electioneering for votes out in my 
State, where the people have such a strong passion 
for rtcA lands, and such an intense American hor- 
ror for/orfig?ifrs. Yes, sir, here is a direct issue 
between Mr. F'illmore and his friends, in my part 
of the country, in faith and doctrine. What will 
they do.' Will they repudiate their doctrine lo 
save their candidate? or will they repudiate their 
candidate to save iheir doctrine .' The people will 
see at the election. 

I have said now, Mr. Chairman, all I desire to 

^ say about the naturalized foreigner. Let us sec 

! if the charges made by the Know Nothing party 
against the Catholic church in this country can 
be sustained, according to the rule laid down by 
my honorable colleague, Mr Cox, the other day, 
to wit, that every parly should be considered th« 
only true and hgitimate cxpo^H■nt of its own 
views. Now, this is a correct rule, and orfa 
by which every party in the country should be 
willing to stanu or fafl. Let us then see, accord- 
ing to this rule, if the Catholics in this country 
are guilty or innocent of the charges preferred 
against them by the Know Nothing party. What, 
then, are the charges.' They contended that thw 
Roman Catholic Church in this country owe an 
allegiance to the Pope of Home, over and abovo 
the allegiance they owe and acknowledge to th« 
Government of the United Stales; that, there- 
fore, they are unfit for office, and unworthy to b* 
trusted: 

That the Pone of Rome, by virtue of his office 
as the spiritual head of the church, claims, and 
has the power, to absolve any of the members of 

, the Catholic church throughout the world, from 

' their oath of allegiance to their respective Gov- 
ernments: 

That it is a part and parcel of the Catholic 
creed, that there is no oblnj-uion uj)on a Catholic 
to keep failh, or comply wiih the contracts they 
may make, with those that differ with thcno in 

: their religious faith: 

That a Catholic cannot l>c^ faithful to the Pope, 
and to the GoviTnnient in which he lives, pro- 
vided the Pone and his Government should be al 
wnr with eacli other. They cluirge that, in that 
event, the Catholic citizen would be required by 



15 



,. 1 , . ^„J„„ „. .i,„ UiAAintT nnri in i olic— by an educated Irishman— ray father, Who understood 

his creed, to surrender at the bidding, ana ^ jk;, f„i,i „.„o taught it lo his children, without constraint, 
favor of the Pope, and consequently slioulQ not, , ^^^^ ^^.|j„ ^^^^ j^g„, ,Yec to choose among the six hundred 
and as far as thev are concerned, they shall not , and sixty-six faiths now in the world. He did not say to 
have any office in the Government, civil or mili- '! me, be a Catholic ; but told me to read, not alone histories 
■T^i -vr.. r^l,o;,.,v,o., nro tliP r.n«.itin7T? of Which he had many, Catholic and Prote.-^tant, but the 

Uiry. These, Mr. Chairman, are the positions , ^^„^^^ ^^ ^^^ churches, to acquaint invself thoroughly 
assumed by the Know Nothing party in my ais- | ^^,j|^ ^^g:^J. arcana, and not to stick in the bark. I think I 
trict, in regard to Roman Catholics, during the ; i have done so. He has gone to receive the reward of a life 



canvass the past summer 

Now, sir, I approve the rule laid down by my 
honorable colleague the other day. I think it a 
good one, and I desire to try the Know Nothing 
party and the Catholic party by it. I have given 



Mr. Kelly then goes on to state, further, that 

■' It will be remembe 

Connell was elected 
vou'^the opinions and doctrines attributed to the , county of Clare. Sir 
Catholics by the Know Nothings. Now let us ,; Ji^ ^^f, "^t reb 



spent in the service of his adopted country, and the main- 
tenance of the faith ; while I, of his sons, stand alone. 



see what they say about themselves. I will first 
read an extract from a speech of the Hon. Mr. 
Rudd, made in the late Kentucky constitutional 
convention, in answer to a speech of the Hon. 
Garret Davis, concerning foreigners and Catho- 
lics. In regard to the charge that Catholics in 



It will' be remembered by this body that, in 1828, Daniel 
O'Connell was elected to the British Parliament from the 
Sir Vesey Fitzgerald contested his elec- 
onnel'l was required to swear that 
city taught rebellion and disorder and sedition, he 
refused the vile oath. What was the result.' Though one 
of the greatest lawyers of the world, he was ejected from 
Parliament, and a new writ of election was issued. He 
offered again, and was again elected ; and the House of 
Commons, fearing the people, caused a committee to be 
raised, and directed them to inquire of the Catholic college 
of Mavnooth, in Ireland, the college of Louvaine, in Bel- 



i'^?T''z°- " J:fc±!r"/?,.!lirS :i fsjf»"^;;rKS.s;";'is4™ 



of Rome than to the'Government of the United 
States, Mr. Rudd says: 

"TTie gentleman from Bourbon (Mr. Davis) has again 
and again, in the course of his long speech, spoken of the 
political or temporal allegiance which he asserts the Cath- 
olics of this and other countries owe to the Pope. Now, I 
deny that they acknowledge or owe this alh^giance to him. 
It is untrue; it is entirely a mistake on the part of the gen- 
tleman." * * * * "It is not the first time that this 
cliarge has been made against Catholics and their religion ; 
but whenever and wherever made, it has been denied and 
fully refuted." 



olics owed ci\il or temporal allegiance to the Pope ? They 
all answered. No ! Dr. Doyle, one of the most distinguished 
Catholic theologians that ever lived, asserted the same ; and 
further, that such a doctrine had never existed in the 
Church." 

I will now read an extract from the speech of 
Hon. J. R. Chandler, of Pennsylvania, delivered 
in this Hall on the 10th day of January, 1855, 
in regard to the charges preferred against the 
Catholic church in this country by the Know 
Nothing party, with reference to the charge of 
Now, according to the rule laid down by my , superior temporal allegiance to the Pope. He 
colleague, that each party is to be the only true !; says 



Mr. Chairman, I deny that the Bishop of Rome has, or 
that he claims for himself, the right to interfere Vnith the 
political relations of any other country than that of which 
he is himself the sovereign. I mean— and 1 have no desire 
to "conceal any point— that I deny to the Bishop of Rome 
the right, resulting from his divine office, to interieie in the 
relations between subjects and their sovereigns, between 
citizens and tjaeir Governments." 

He goes on further to state — 



and legitimate exponent of its own views and 

doctrines, I will leave it to you, Mr. Chairman, 

and the country, to say whether injustice has 

not been done to the Catholics by the Know 

Nothing party.' Mr. Rudd, who is a Catholic, 

and informed upon the subject of the Catholic 

creed, here denies, flatly and most unequivocally, 

the doctrine of a higher allegiance to the Pope 

attributed to them by the Know Nothing party, ji ,;j ^^^. j^^ aHo^ed, witliout the imputation of vanity, to 

But, sir, I will read again an extract from the jj p,ake one more direct allusion to myself and my creed. And, 

speech of the honorable Mr. Spaulding, made in : sir, clearly and disiincily do I deny, that tlie power of tlie 

tL same conventioti and in ailswer t. the ^me : ^i^^^J^M:urSor^^:i:i::'l:^^^ 
speech of the honorable Mr. Uavis. In speaKing i: ^^^^ ^j^^ political allegiance which any Roman Catholic of 
of the hi<^her allegiance which he was charged ,1 time ountry may owe to the Government and Constitution 
with owing to the Pope, Mr. Spaulding said: I of the United States. And that tins disavowal f /idividcd 
° ' ' ' ° P fealty may not be regard.^ as a mere generality, I give 

" I owe no allegiance to any man, or set of men, under ;: it explicitness by declaring that, if by any providence the 
heaven, save the Commonwealth of Kentucky, and to the i' Bishop of Rome sliould become possessed of armies and a 
Government of the United States." * * * " i owe no ; fl^et, and, in a spirit of conquest, or in any other spirit, 
allegiance to the Pope of Rome, or to the cardinals, bishops, gimuld invade the territory of the Uuited States, or assail 
or priests; they have no right to send any persons here to ^ t|,e rights of our country, he would find no more earnest 
cut our throats. The Pope has no more authority to alter , antagonists than the Roman Catholics. And, for myself, 
or change the principles of the Church of Rome than has ; i ,,- „ot here in this Hall to vote supplies for a dclending army, 
the President to alter or clianae the Consiituti'on of the ji or if too old to take part in Iha active defense, I should, il 
United States. If he dare to do it, he might be called to I alive, be at least in my chamber, or at the foot of the altar. 
Recount for it by me, or anybody else belonging to the h imploring God for the safety of my country and the defeat 
Cliurch." j of the invaders." 

This, sir, is another plain, flat, unequivocal !| This, Mr. Chairman,is to the point, directand 
contradiction that Catholics in this country ow^e |j unequivocal; and according to the rule, that every 
a higher allegiance to the Pope than they do to !! ^an shall be the exponent of his own views, 
their country. 1: shows, beyond cavil or controversy, that flagrant 

I will read now, sir, an extract from the speech j injustice has been done to the Catholics in this 
of Hon. Mr. Kelly,made in the same convention, Ij country by the Know Nothing party, in attrib- 
at the same time, and in answer to the same mj^o- to them views and opinions which they 
speech of Mr. Davis. Mr. Kelly says: jj utterly repudiate. But, sir, 1 desire to read again 

'•The gentleman [Mr. Davis] says we owe c[vil and ; an extract ^rom_ a letter of the late Dr.^ England, 
religious obedience to f ' ' ' '" -'-'■' ■ • • " ^' ' ■ ~ ^^..^^r, 

so ; but I kno)i' to the 
I would die before 
" I know what the 




16 



Catholics — of their higher civil and political alle- 
giance to the Pojie, he says: 

"Let the I'.ipe aiifl cardinals, and all the po«-t»rs of the 
Catholic vvoriil united, iiiako the IcMt encroachtnent upon 
that Constitution, [the Constitution of the L'nitfd Slates,] 
and we will protect it with our lives. Summon a general 
council — let that council interfere in our clertins but an 
assistant t'> a turnkey of a prison — we deny its ri^'lit ; we 
reject its usurpation. Let that council lay a tax of but one 
cent only upon any one of our churches, we will not pay it. 
Vet wtj are moot ohi dieiil Papists." 

Again, from Bishop England, in regard to the 
charge, that the Catholic cannot be faithful to the 
Pope and to the Government in which he lives, 
provided his Government and the Pope be at va- 
riance. In speakins; of this particular charge, 
Bishop England says: 

«' I can be laithful to the Popi? and to the Goveniment 
under which 1 live, I care not wlieilipr that Government 
be adiiiiiii!<tered by a Papist, a I'rotestant, by a Jew, by a 
MohaniiiuMlan, or by a Pagan. It is, then, untrue to assert, 
a.'* you have done, that a consistent Papist and a dutit'ul j 
subject of a Protestant administration must be incompat- 
ible." 

I will read one more extract from Right Rev. 
Dr. England, in confirmation of this same point. 
It is so pointed, so clear, and so conclusive, 1 
cannot forljear. I ask your special attention, Mr. 
Chairman, to this extract. In speaking of the 
Constitution of the United States he says: ; 

" The American ronstitiiiion leaves its cllizen.s in perfect 
freedom tohave whom they please to regulate their spiritual ' 
concerns. But if the Pope were to declare war against 
America, and any Koman Catholic, under the pretext of, 
spiritual obedience, were to rel'use to oppose this temporal 
B2gres«or, he would deserve to he punished for his relusal, 
because he owes it to this (Jovernment to maintain it.* rights. : 
And spiritual power doesiiot, and cannot, destroy the claiiii 
which the Governinent has upon him.'' 

This, Mr. Chairman, is not only pointed but 
irresistibly conclusive, as to whether a Catholic 
can be faithful to the Pope, and faithful to his 
own Government, provined they be at war. 
"Why, sir, I'.i.^liop England here states, in so 
many words, tiiat if the old Pope himself were 
to declare war against the United Stales, and any 
Catholic in the Union were to refuse to repel him 
OS anags^essor, he would deserve to be punished, 
because his obligations to defend his ovin country 
and maintain her rights are higher and above his 
obligations to the Pope. Nothing could be more 
pointed, nothing more conclusive, than this state- 
ment of Bisho]) England in regard to the obliga- 
tions that the Catholic citizen in this country 
owes to tin,' Pope of Rome. 

But, again, 1 will read from the speech of Hon. • 
Mr. Chandler, cin!)rar.iiig tlie opinion of the Pope 
himself (p. 115) ujion the points in controversy. 
The extract is as lollows: 

" .^fr. Chairman, the Raiiie circumstance's which induced 
that great statesman, .Mr. Put, to adilress the six Catholic 
Universities, led the Koman Cathole- .Vrclihishopt of Ire- 
land lo addreitK tliu Pope himself on the subject, and the 
answer was as clear and explicit as those of the I'liivers- 
itie.". t<o|i'iiiii dehhenition was giv.-n in the congregation 
of Cardinal--, and the response was made jn the most lorinal 
manner, iis declaring the doctrine of the Catholic (.'"hureli 
on ilie >ul>jeei involved III the queHtioiis. J copy from an 
uiltlieiitic report : 

" ' The Itomnii Catholic .Archbishops tif treland, ai their 
meciing in Dublin, in 1791. addressed a letter to the Pope, 
wherein they dcscrili il the iiimreprencntationH that had hien 
recently publi>heil i>l ili. ir cnnseeralion oath, and the great 
injury lo ilie CailiMJie hi.dy arising /roui them." • • * 

"'.\f>er dm- dei|h.r;iiion at Rome, the congregation of 
Cardinals appoint'-d H'liperiiitend the ecclesiastical affairs 
»f Uiciie kingdoms, reluiiied i;n answer, (of which the fol- 



lowing is an extract.) by tlie authority and command of hir 
holiness : 

" ' Most lUuslriotu and lAOft RererenJ Lords and Brother* : 
" • \Vc percei%'e from your late letter the great uneasiness 
you latxir under since liie publication ot a pamphlet enti- 
tled The yresent Slate of the Church of Ireland, (ri.>ia which 
our detractors have tajien occasion ii> renew the old cal- 
umny against the Catholic religion with increa.'^ed acri- 
mony ; namely : that thU religion i', hy no means, compatible 
u-ith the safelxiof Kin's and ftrinthlia ; because, as they tay. 
the Romtin Poutijf being the father aiid master of all Calk- 
olics, aiul invcxled with tach great authority,, that he can 
free the siihjects of other kingdoms from their fidelity and 
oaths of allesiani-e to Kings and Princes, he has it in his 
power, they contend, to cause disturbances and injure the 
public tranquillily of kingdoms with ease. We wonder 
that you could be une,-L«y at these complaints, especially 
after your most exei-llent broUu r and a|)o>tolical fellow- 
laborer, the .\rclibishop of Cashel. and other strenuous 
defenders of ihe rights of the Holy .-»ec, had evidently ru- 
futed and explained away these sianderous reproaches in 
their celebrated writings. In this cont^over^y, a niOM 
accurate discrimination should be made betw een the genu- 
ine rights of the .ViKislolie See. and those lliat are imputed 
to it by innovators of this age for Ihe purpose of culumni- 
ating. The See of liome nei-er tauiht that faith is not to bt 
kept trith the heterodox: that an oath to Kin^s separated 
from the Catholic communion can he violated: that it is 
lawful forthe Biahovof Rome lo inrade their temporal riskts 
and dominions. W e, too, consider an attempt or design 
against the lije of Kings and Princes, even under the yretezt 
of religion, as a horrid and deleslabli; crime.' "' 

You will see, Mr. Chairman, that the Pope 
disavows, positively and unequivocally, the doc- 
trines and powers attributed to him by his ene- 
mies. He certainly ought to be considered good 
and conclusive authority, according to the rule 
laid down by my honorable colleague — that every 
party should be the only true exponent of iis 
own views. 

I will read now an extract from a speech of the 
Hon. Garret Davis, who, as I before said, was 
the choice of the southern wing of the Know 
Nothing party for the Presidency, in place of 
Mr. Fillinore. I read this extract to show that 
in the judgment of that great man, at the time he 
made his speech in the late Kentucky Constitu- 
tional Convention, it would be wrong to attempt 
lo exclude native-born Catholics from oiKce; be- 
cause, as he says in liie extract, which 1 will now 
read: "It is their birthright; and they are ae 
competent to take charge of those high trusts as 
he, (Mr. Davis,) or any olhor person." It reads 
as follows: 

" I have known Roman Catholics, residents of Mar>'land, 

of Louisiana, and of our State, excellent people— mi far as 1 

could judge the heart of man, as pooil a.- any whatever. I 

have had tluy happiness to niake the Hci|uaintance of 

si-veral gentlemen, members of this body, who, I am in- 

i formed, arc of that faith ; and none here have a larger 

I share of my esteem and conlidi'iiee. My belief is, I know 

'. no better men anywhere — none more lit to assume the re- 

i sponsibililiesof self government, or In discharge the duliej 

nf good citizens, both public and private. These men. and 

all Catholic- bom .-iiid eilncaled in this country of light 

and liberty, are, and were, by iiie, iiilended to remain Inr 

from the operation of any principle which I have submitted 

to the convention ; because our country and its institution* 

were a.s much their birUirighl as mine, and they as well 

qualified lo take charge of both asmyself nr any olljers."' 

This, sir, is the testimony of a political oppo- 
nent of the Catholics — and his tesiiinonv ought 
to be conclusive with his own party — and if it is, 
it forever settles the questions as lo the Catholics 
ill this country, 

I desire now, Mr. Chairman, to read a brief 

historv of the invisti;;ation and adjudication of 

. this whole subject by the British Parliament; one 

' which, I think, should put the question, as to the 



17 



power of the Pope over the Catholics in this 
country, forever at rest. 

The question of granting to Ireland a part of 
the privileges enjoyed by the y^eople of Great 
Britain, being under consideration, the question 
was raised with regard to tiie asserted power of 
the Roman t'ontiff to interfere in internal affairs 
of other Governments. This being the question, 
and producing great excitement, the tiiree follow- 
ing questions were prepared by Mr. Pitt, Prime 
Minister of England in 1789, through the Catho- 
lics of London, to six of the most learned Catho- 
lic universities of Europe, viz: of Paris, of 
Douay, of Louvain, of Acala, of Salamanca, and 
of Valladolid. The questions are pointed, and the 
answers unequivocal. They read as follows: 

" 1. Q,ucstwii. Has tlie Pope, or Cardinals, or any body 
of men, or any individual of the (Church of Rome, any civil 
authority, power, jurisdiction, or preeminence wliatsoever 
within the realm of Eiifrland? 

" Answer. Neither the Pope, nor the Cardinals, nor 
any body of men, nor any other person of the Church of 
Rome, hath any civil authority, civil power, civil jurisdic- 
tion, or civil preeminence whati^oever in any kingdom, 
con.sequently none in the kinjidom of England. 

"2. Q,uefi.ian. Can the Pope, or Cardinals, or any body 
of men, or any individual, of the Church of Rome, absolve 
or dispense with his Majesty's subjects from their oath of 
allegiance, upon any pretext whatever? 

" Answer- Neither the Pope, nor the Cardinals, nor 
any body vf men, nor any individual of the Church of 
Rome, can, by the virtue of the keys, absolve or release 
tlie subjects of the King of England from their oath of 
allegiance. 

" 3. Q,u.esfion. Is there any principle in the tenets of the 
Catholic faith by which Catholics are justified in not keep- 
ing faith with heretics, or other persons differing from them 
in their religious opinions, in any transaction, either of a 
public or a private character.'' 

"^/isuer. There is no tenet in the Catholic churches by 
which Catholics are justified in not keeping faith with her- 
etics, or those wlio differ from them in matters of religion. 
The tenet that it is lawful to break faith with heretics 
is so repugnant to common honesty and the opinions of 
Catijolics, that tliere is nothing of which those who have 
defepded the Catholie faiUi against I'rotestants have com- 
plained more heavily, than the malice and calumny of their 
adversaries in imputing this tenet to them. 

These, Mr. Chairman, are the questions put 
by Mr. Pitt, through the Catholics of London, in 
1789, to the six universities before mentioned, 
and these are the answers to said questions, given 
by the university at Paris, in March, 1789; and 
they are ratified and confirmed by the other five 
universities — all of which I have before rne, but 
not time to ivad — Douay, Louvain, Alcala, Sala- 
manca, and Valadolid, though not in the identical 
letters and words, yet in sentiment identical and 
unequivocal. 

Now, sir, what becomes of the charges pre- 
ferred against the Catholics in this country after 
these responses, and according to the rule laid 
down by my colleague, [Mr. Cox,] that every 
party should be considered the .only true and 
Ieo;itimate exponent of its own views and doc- 
trines? Shall we discard my colleague's rule, 
and say that the Catholics are not, and should not 
be, considered the only true and legitimate expo- 
nents of their own views? Shall we say that my 
honorable colleague's rule is a good one by which 
to try Know Nothings, but a bad one by which 
to try Catholics? Shall we, to save the incon- 
sistencies, the absurdities, and cruellies, of Know 
Nothingisni,say that the whole Catholic Church, 
from tlie Pope down, (for I have quoted them j 
all,) are a set of ignoramuses, and do not know 
what they believe.-' Shall we, to save " Sam" i 



from the universal condemnation of all disinter- 
ested men, say that the whole Catholic world are 
a» set of scamps, rapscallions, and liars, who 
could not, or would not, tell the truth if they 
knew it? Is it possible, Mr. Chairman, that the 
cause of Know Nothingism has become so des- 
perate that, in order to sustain it in the great 
essential element of its strength, we must say of 
the Church which, of all others in the world, has 
done most to send the light of literature, science, 
and it's own peculiar views of religion, all over the 
world, is the only Church in the world, which is 
so ignorant that they do not know what they" 
believe; or if they do, that they are so wicked and 
vile, they will not tell? Shall we render this judg^ 
ment against that Church? Will "Sam," sir, 
ask it at our hands ? Would it not be more courte- 
ous to all parties — would it not be more charitable 
to conclude, rather, that " Sam" had been a little 
too hasty in his charges upon that Church; and 
that as soon as he sees the error of his way, he 
will, like a wise man, retrace his steps, and like 
a true knight, and gallant and magnanimous foer 
I man, take back what he finds himself unable tq 
sustain by the evidence. 

When the British Parliament received the an.- 
swers, which I have read, fiom the six churches 
referred to, of Paris, t^c, they did not say to 
these universities that they were ignorant, and 
did not know what they believed, or that they, 
were vile, and would not tell. They received 
them in the same spirit in which the questions had 
been propounded; and when they had considered 
them in Parliament, satisfied as they were that 
their answers contained the truth, and were a 
complete refutation of the charges preferred 
against the Catholics of that country by their 
enemies, (and they were precisely the same aa 
those now preferred against the saine people in 
this country by the Know-Nothing parly,) they 
removed the disabilities which had been before 
imposed upon them by law. This is the ia- 
vesfigation, the decision, and action upon this 
great question, by a body of men, all of whom., 
in their religious taith, stood opposed to the ten- 
ets and dogmas of the Catholic creed, and in 
legal and literary attainments, not surjrassed by 
any other in the world. Sir, this decision and 
action of the Biitish Parliament, removing the 
disabilities from Catholics on account of their 
religion, formed a new era in her history, and 
merits our highest consideration. It was not 
only hailed with joy and thanksgiving by Cath- 
olics, but by Protestants also. The imposition 
of the disabilities on Catholics in England, had 
not only proved unjust and oppressive upon them, 
but it had been also a complete clog to the growth 
of Protestantism. 

In a speech of Dr. Chalmers, of the Scotch 
Presbyterian church, and one of the most learned 
divines in the world, made at Edinburgh, Scot- 
land, he stated: " That from the day that England 
commenced the plan of propping up Protesta,nt- 
ism, and suppressing Catholicism by law — from 
that very day, Catholicisin grew, and Protestant- 
ism waned; that the law of disabilities upon 
Catholics, stood like a wall of fire between them 
and Protestants; that they looked upon Protest- 
ants as their enemies, seeking to oppress and 
crush them, and they would not therefore hear 
them preach, and could not, consequently, be 



18 



converted by ihem." It is in this country as it 
was in that. If you wish to build up the Catho- 
lic, and put down the Protestant church, impose 
disabilities on Catholics, and prop up tile Protest- 
ant by law. If you want to build up the Protest- 
ant cliurch and cnnvrrl the Catholics, strike out 
all disabilities, and let all be free. All that is 
wanted to make Protestantism the religion of the 
world, is a f.ee circulation of a faithful translation 
i>f the Scriptures, in the veniacuilar language of 
every nation upon earth. A religion that requires 
a law of the State to commend, or the sword and 
strong arm of liie Government to enforce it, in 
my judginciit is not the religion of the Bible, as 
tau'^lit by Jtsus of Nazareth, nor is it the religion 
of Prot( st.inis as taught by Martin Luther. But 
let us si e if Prfitestaniism needs any props of 
law, either directly or indirectly, in this country. 
How many Protestant, and how many Catholic 
churches have wo in the United Slates' 

I have shown you that the Catholics would not 
subvert our glorious Government if they could. 
I now purpose to show you that they could not, 
ifthey would. Let us, then, see. I read from the 
census of ld.50, taken under a special act of Con- 

fress, from table on page 1,33, that the total num- 
er of churches of all denominations in the United 
States is tliiriy-eiglit thousand one hundred and 
eighty-three; of ilial number only one thousand 
two hundri'd and twenty seven are Caihoiic, show- 
ing about thirty-seven thousand Protestant to one 
thousand Catholic. Does this look like the Catholic 
church in this country was about to overrun the 
Protestant? Does this look like they could, if they 
would, soon get the possession and control of the 
Goveriimi.'iitr Tliiriy-seveii thousand to one thou- 
sand, and yet there is danger! To say this is to 
acknowledge that error is mightier than truth — 
the few more powerful than tiie many. Sucii 
a decision might be all right and proper in a 
Know Nothing council, but in no other council 
upon earth. 1 am a Protestant, and 1 will not so 
stultify myself, and reflect upon the church of 
whicli I am a member, as to say, that thirty-seven 
Protestant churches, in a free and republican 
Government, with truth on their side, could not 
and would not, in any controversy, in any contin- 
gency, or in any country, be aide to withstand 
one Catholic ehiircli, with no arms of ollense or 
defense but error. Tin; truth of the gospel of 
Christ is mighty, and will prevail; and needs no 
other sword tliaii the sword of tiie spirit — tlie 
word of God. Give us, then, what was won 
for us by our fathers in the Kevohilion, and se- 
cured to lis by our glorious Constitution — the 
freedom of religion and the equality of rights 
It is all liiat Cailiolics ask; it is all that Protest- 
ants n< ed. 

I have shown you, Mr. Chairman, two errors 
in the jiositioiis assumed by the Know Nothing 
party — first, that the Catholic cliuieh would not, 
if it could, and secondly, could not, if it would, 
control and siilivi-rt the Government. 1 now de- 
sire to show anoilier e>;regious i rr<M' into which, 
many of the Know Nothings All, in my district, 
and i pri sunn; it was the case in othiT places. 

i'hey all st.uted out with the general assumption, 
that the (Jatholic was by far the richrsl and 
most influi ntial church in the United States; and 
Home went so f.ir as to say, that it was actually 

worth a hundred millions of church projieriy; 



that it was sweeping over the country with the 
[old Pope at its liead, and w<)uld, if not checked 
at once, soon have possession of the Government, 
destroy our liberties, and forever annihilate our 
fn-e institutions. This is the sort of doctrins 
preached in my country, during my canvass, to 
rouse the prejudices, to fire the p.issions and ex- 
cite the fears of the people. They said there, 
that Catholics would not tolerate Protestants, and 
Protestants should not, and as far as they wers 
concerned, they would not, tolerate Catholics. 
Now let us fet;e what the facts are in reganl to this 
matter. Let u.i see if the Catliolic Church is worth 
a hundred millions, or if it is richer than any 
other, or so rich as many others, and all about it, 
if we can. I will read frcm the census of ths 
United States, table on page 133, which is as fol- 
lows: 

The Methodist church, worth .S14,?35.148 

The Preshvlerian 14,.vi7,089 

The Baptist II.iki1,I27 

Tlie Episcopal II .384.210 

The Roman Catholic 'J,-iX.75S 

The Consresatioiial 7.970,195 

Toial value ofall the churche? 87,446,371 

From this table, Mr. Chairman, you will see 
at once, that, so far from the Catholic being the 
richest church in the Union, as contended for by 
! many, the Methodist and Pres!)yieriaii churches 
\ are each wortii nearly douljlc the amount of 
the Catholic; while the Bafnist and Episcopal 
are each worth about one third more. And so 
far from the Catholic church, as was contend- 
ed for by some, being worth a hundred millions 
of property, all the churches in the Union pul 
togetherare only worth not quite ninety millions — 
say ninety for even count — and of this ninety 
millions, the Roman Catholics only h.-vve nine; 
while the Prolesianis have eigliiy-one millions. 
Is it possible, 1 ask again, that eighty-one millions 
of Protestant church projierty, with truih, as all 
Protestants agree, upon their side, wiili the un- 
restrained privili ge of preaching it whenever and • 
wherever they please, cannot comiiete success- 
fully with only nine millions of Catholic church 
property, without being jiropjied or sustained by 
, the strong arm or political machinery of theGov- 
lernnii'iitf Sir, such a stale t)f tacts may seem 
i questionable, or look scary, lo a Know Nothing 
in the dark; but to one not iniiiated, seen in the 
I day lime, and viewed in the light of truth, nothing 
■could aiipear more j>reposteious and absurd. 
i 1 will now read, Mr. Chairman, an article from 
I the Philadelphia Ledger, showing the relative 
I strength and numbers of almost every church in 
I the United States, and made out from the census 
tables, to which i Lave already referred. It reads 
as follows: 

" Hklioious I)ksomin*tions of tiik L'nitfd State*. 

'i'hc iiuiiiher ol' relieimis sccLs in tin' I'liiled Sialea ii 

twenty, without riiiiuiiiii; tin- t'hiiiesi' lluildlii.-t- in Califor- 

I ni:i. »r hiiiidrv minor ('lii{>lian denoMiinalion>. 'I'he whol« 

I ninnher or eililiec!. m about thirty six llniu-aiid, t-apablc of 

I aee<iininii<(atiii|; roiirlcen millions oi' |i.mi|(1.-. The lofU 

value of churi-li properly held by llicsr' iiv,:nly denomina- 

I lions, is iii'arlv niiietv millions of d. •liar,-— in exact num- 

I hers, .'5.S6.IIC,6:i9. 'I'lic iiv.-raae valne of each church and 

us appurtenances is tw.-iiiy lour loindred dollars. ThoM 

I facts, whicli arc derived from oMiii il tallies lor Ihc cenuus, 

expliNlc iiiiiiihor false notion, whien is that thnrcis luoiiiUcD 

luxiirvaiid wealth in Ainoriean cltinclics. 

"Tac mo-i nnnn-rnus sect in the IJoilcd States it the 
Methodist, llie second the ll:ip;i.l, and the ilnrd the Presby- 
terian. 'J'lie first lias church aeeomaiodaliou^ for over four 
inilliuiid of worsliijurs ; in other words, the .MothodLSU have 



19 



houses of worship for one sixlh the entire population. The 
Baptists liave accoriimodatioMS for more than three niillions, 
and the Presbyterians for more than two. Tlie foiirih sect, 
in the extent of its areommoilations, is the Congregational ; 
the fifth tlif Ep s-opalian ; and the sixth the Ronian Catlio- 
lie. The inniiher of churches brlonsing to the tlucc h'adln^ 
denominations does always follow tli is proportion, however. 
The Methodist, for example, while lliey can accommodate 
twice as many wor.-hip?rs as the Preshylerians, have three 
times as many churches. The Uonian Catholics, thonah 
sixth on the list as regards accommodations, stand sr'venlh 
in the iiuniber of their churches. Of the principal sects, 
lliat which has the smallest edifices for worship, is the 
Methodists; and those which have the largest are the Uni- 
tarians and the Dutch Reformed. The smallest denomina- 
tion is lite Swedenborgian. and tlie next the Mennonite. 
Tliere are no less than fifty-two Tiinker churclies, and 
thirty five thousand worshipers. The Friends, so nnmer 
ous in this city, have accnmnmdations for about three hun 
dred thousand, or but little more than one hundredth of the 
entire population of the United Stales. 

"The richest denomination is the Methodist, which is 
set down in the census tables at $14,826,148. 'I'he next is 
the Preshyt.rian. which is rated at *14,5.')7.089. The Epis- 
copal, which in number of churches stands fi'th, ranks 
third for its church propertv, being estimated at .$1 1 ,384,'ilO. 
The fourth is the Itaptisti .S-l 1.031, 127 : the fifth the Ro- 
man Catholic, ,^9.2.56,7.")8 ; and the sixth the Coiign gational, 
$7,970,195. Of these various sects, the two which sympa- 
Uiize the most in doctrine, are the Congregaiionalists and 
Presbyterians — both adhering to the Westminster Cate- 
chism, and differing only in their form of government, the 
one being republican, the other democratic. Together 
these two sects have over six thou-and churches, can seat 
nearly three millions of worshipers, and hold church p.iop- 
erty to the value of more than twenty-two millions." 

But it is said that in no Catholic country upon 
earth will they tolerate Protestants. Is this true.' 
Let us see. What, sir, are the facts.' Why, in 
Austria, the oldestCatiiolic monarchy in Europe, 
there were, in 1851, about 2-2,00U.0()(l of Roman 
Catholics, and in all oiher denominations al)0ut 
10,OnO,00(t. In Prus.sia there were, in 1849, 
10,016,798 Protestanis, and only 6,079,613 Cath- 
olics; while in Switzerland, in 1851), there were 
only 80,000 Catholics and 153,000 Protestanis; 
and in France, to say nnihinu; of the other king- 
doms of Europe, in Catholic France, we iiave 
2,000,000 Protestants— 30,000 of them in the city 
of Paris— and they there pay our Protestant 
preachers now, out of the pul)lic treasury. In all 
Great Britain, according to the census, the Cath- 
olics have only 570 churches, while the Metho- 
dists have near 12,000, and the Church of England 
14,078; the Baptists 2,500. Why, sir, the King 
of Belgium is a Protestant, though his subjects 
are mostly Catholics. The King of Saxony is a 
Catholic, though most of his sul)jects are Prot- 
ectants. The King of Greece is a Catholic, though 
most of his subjects are of the Greek Church. 1 
only referyou to these factsand figures, Mr. Chair- 
man, to show you that every assumption of 
Know Nothingism fails when you come to the 
proof; and that, while other nations are advancing 
in Christian civilization, we are about to take a 
retrogade step. 

What else do they say.' They say that in all 
countries, and in every age of the world, has the 
.^Cathoiic religion been inimical to republican 
wovernme.it; and that no Republic would stand 
if put under Catholic conirol. Why, sir, what 
are the facts? The first colony in America that 
ever established the equality of Christians, was 
the Caiholic colony of Maryland, of which this 
District once formed part. While the Episco- 
palians were persecutinsr the Puritans in one sec- 
tion'of the country, and the Puritans persecuting 
the Episcopalians in another, the Catholic colony 



of Maryland was the only city of refuge for them 
all. What else.' AVhy, the oldest Rcpul)lic in the 
world, is the RepiiblicofSan Moreno — notaday 's 
journey from the Eternal City. It has stood for 
aljout one thousand four hundred and fifty years, 
I think, a pure Re|iublic, under the protection of 
the Pope. Again, the Republic of A ndora, in tha 
Spanish Pyrenees. It is a ptire democracy, gov- 
erned by men of its own choice, and under the 
protection of the Bishop of Urgil. But what else? 
Why, Kossuth, the great Hungarian, was a Prot- 
estant; and he was elected, in the very heart of 
Austria, the oldest Catholic monarchy in Europe. 
What for? To revolutionize that Catholic coun- 
try, to establish a rejiublic. And who sustained 
i and elected him? The Catholics of Hungary. 
Why, sir, but for the combined armies of France 
and Austria, the old Pope himself, in less than 
one year from to-day, would be driven from the 
Eternal City, or forced to declare in favor of a 
republican government. Yes, sir, the same re- 
publican Catholic spirit which elected Kossuth 
to revolutionize Austria, would revo'ulionize 
RotTie in less than a year, if Louis Napoleon and 
the Czar of all the Russias would only withdraw 
their armies. And yet, say the Know Nothings, 
Catholics are always and everywhere inimical 
to human liberty. Now, read the history of our 
country, written in the blood of our fathers, 
showing that, on every battle-field, from Boston 
to California, in the war of the Itevolulion, in 
the war of 1812, and in the war with Mexico, 
native born and naturalized, Protestant and 
Roman Catholic, have stood side by side and 
shoulder to shoulder, and poured their blood oat 
like water, in one common stream, in defense 
of their common country. Read then the his- 
tory of Protestantism, written in the blood of the 
martyrs who fell in defense of the freedom of 
religion and the equality of rights. Read then 
the history of the blessed Bible, our old family 
Bible, which we keep on the stand, written 
inthe blood of the Son of God, and teaching 
us to do unto others as we vvou d have others do 
unto us; and then say whether we should not 
expel from our once happy land all this flum- 
mery of Know Nothitiffism, and leave the Cath- 
! olic and naturalized citizen where we would have 
I them leave us, if they had the pr)wer — free to 
I worship God as we jileased, without stint or 
mainprize; or, in the beautiful language of the 
song of the "Pilgrim Fathers," 

"Leave untouched what here we found, 
Freedom to worship God." 

But, again: iiow have Protestants gained th?8 
wonderful foothold in the old countries? By our 
example, liy our religious toleration, by ourdiplo- 
iTiacy, and by our Protestant missionaries. We 
have tolerated all religions heretofore, without 
restraint. By it we have obtained like privileges 
for Protestantism in Catholic countries in Europe. 
We are now converting thousands annually. The 
cause of Protestantism is onward in those coun- 
tries now; but let us set the example of proscrip- 
tions here, let us ostracise the Catholic, let us b© 
the first to begin religious intolerance; and, sir, 
in every Catholic country in Europe would the 
iron heel of despotism at once be placed upon 
the heads of Protestants, and the great cause of 
Protestantism would be rolled back at once for a 



20 



thousand yar.s. In the name, then, of Protest- 
antism I proust iijiiiiist tlie unwise, unjust, im- 
politic, and suicidal principles and policy of the 
Know Nothing party. 

But they say that Catholics luive persecuted 
Protestants; and tliey refer to the bloody tragedy 
and massacre of St. Bartholomew's day, and 
other days of persecution and massacre, in the 
dark ages of tlie world, and under monarchical 
forms of government. This I admit. I admit 
that Catholics have persecuted Protestants, and 
Protestants have persecuted Catholics, in the dark 
Qges of the world, and under arbitrary and mo- 
narcliical Governipcnts, and I condemn it, on all 
sides, as cruel, inhuman, and anii-Christian. 

But, sir, because Catholics did wrong then, 
is that any reason we should do wrong now? 
Because Catholics persecuti'd Protestants in the 
dark ages of the world, under monarchical Gov- 
erninenls, is that any reason Protestants should 
now persecute Catholics in the most enlightened 
n?e and in the frei-st Government upon earth? 
Because Catlmlics then, at the point of the bayo- 
net, were driven to the pirsecuiion and massacre 
of Protestants, to satiate the bloodthirsty ambi- 
tion of some reigning prince, is that any reason 
that Protestants nmv, in this free and happy 
land, should, of their own free will and choice, 
commence tin- sann- cruel work of incipient per- 
secution and massacre? None, sir; none what- 
ever. If it was wrong in Catholics then, to per- 
secute Protestants, it would be wrong in Protest- 
ants now, to pi rsccute Catholics. God forbid 
that Protcsinnis should ev(!r be gtiilty of doing 
that which tin y coiidrmn in others! God forbid 
that they should evi-r attempt to justify tliem- 
atlves in doing- wrong, because others have done 
wrong! God forbid that Protestanlsshould ever 
hold up the cruel actions of professed Christians 
of the dark as^es and monarchical Governmcnis, 
as worthy the imitation of Protestants, in tjiis 
age of ligliiand libiTiy ! Ao, no, Mr. Chairman, 
we are goverind imw by a higher sense of justice 
— a more elevated morality and a purer Christi- 
anity. They wi-re governed and controlled by 
tile law of iii'f^lU — we by the law of j ig/it. They 
wer<' controllid l>y the jirinciple of trinpoyal — we 
by the [irini"i|ile of elernal jioud. Tiny were gov- 
erned by tin- laws founded in the selfish ambition 
of tiifJi— We by the j.uvs founded in the wisdom 
Otid goodness of ilinl. Tln^y adopted the princi- 
ples taught by the Kin:: temporal— we the princi- 
ples taught by liie King elernal. 

Talk, sir, about prtiscnibing a man on account 
of his reli!,'ion! TlnTe is nothing so revolting to 
my feelings, so violative of the great fssential 
principles of Protestant Christianity. You can- 
uot change a man's religious faiili by proscription 
or persecuiiiin; it has been tried. Look at the 
great Aposile I'eier, who, when he was being 
crucified at Rnrne on the rack, and tortured by 

Sercing his body with red hot spits, at the bid- 
ng of the cruel and relen'less b'.mperor.to make 
him renounce his faith in Jesus of Nazareth. 
Hear him, in the niidst of his tortures, and last 
expiring throes, siiil exclaim thai "Jesus is the 
Christ, the yon of the living CJod. " You cannot 
change a man's religious laith; and it is wrong 
to attempt to proscrilH' him on account of it. 
You may lake the body, chain, fetter, treat it as 
you will— spit upon it, iramplo it under your feet; 



it is but dust — mortal; but leave, oh I leave the 
mind, the eternal spirit, free to commune as it 
will with the God that gave it; it is immortal. 

Now, Mr. Chairman, I am no Catholic. I am 
neither a Catholic nor a foreiirner. I am a native 
by birth, and a member of a Protestant church, 
and have been for nearly twenty-five years. I 
am, sir, of native-born Protestant parents — w^as 
raised a Protestant, and taujlit to disbelieve, and 
do disbelieve, the dogmas of the Catholic church. 
But, sir, I am not called upon, as a religionist, 
to sit in judgment upon the tenets or dogmas of 
the Catholic creed, to approve or disapprove 
them. That is not my position; that is a mics- 
tion purely between the Catholic and his God, 
and w'ith which I have nothing to do. I am called 
u|ion, in my rejiresentative and legislative capac- 
ity, to vindicate the Consiitutirm of my country, 
and maintain and defend the riglits secured and 
I guarantied by that Constitution to every citizen 
' in the Government, whether native-born or natu- 
! ralized, 'Protestant or Roman Catholic. And, 
I as far as my feeble ability will enal)le me, I 
] intend to do it, without favor or affection. 

I have now said all I have to say about the 
specific doctrines of Know Nothingism. A word 
now about Black Republicanism. 

About this party, Mr. Chairman, and its prin- 
ciples, I have but little to say. They have but one 
distinctive idea, and that is, opjiosition to slavery 
— a war, and a war of ultimate extermination, 
against the peculiar institutions of the South. 
They first assume that slavery is not known to 
th(! Constitution, and, ciMisequently, there is no 
obligation resting upon them to protect the right 
of property in slaves at any time, in any place, 
or in any manner. But when shown tlial the 
Constitution not only recognizes slavery, but ac- 
tually tolerated the slave trade tor a term of years, 
and that provision is made in the Constitution 
f(u- the rendition of fugitive slaves, and that only 
three fifths of that portion of the population of 
the South should be counted in the apportion- 
ment of representation — when shown that all the 
Slates in the Union but one, at the time liie Con- 
stitution was adopted, were slave Slates, and that 
the Constitution was made by slaveholders, and 
I for the express purpose of better s curing their 
properly, and defending and maintaining their 
rights — why, sir, when shown all this, and sat- 
isfied of its truth, they fly olF and say slavery 
is wronic in the abstract, and oujht not to be toler- 
ated — it is a violation of the laws of God — a sin 
in the sight of Heaven, and shall not be tolerated. 
Well, sir, when ihey are then shown thai thert' 
is not a solitary passiige in our old-tashioiied 
family Bililes, from the Ixginning of Genesis to 
the «-nd of Revelations, thai [nohibiis slavery, or 
says one man shall not own properly in ainJlher — 
that God, througli Moses, autliorizt d ihe Jews 
to purchase and hold slaves forever; liiat Abra- 
ham, l.saac, anil Jacob had hosts of slavi'S whilft 
in full fellowship with God; ihal slavery has ex- 
isted in every age of the world siii,-e ihe llood, 
patriarchal, Ji wish, and Christian; that it was 
iviiown, approved, and providid for by God the 
Pather in the instiiulion of the passover and cir- 
cumcision ; that it was seen, justified, and regu- 
I.Ued by God the Son in the insiitution of bap- 
tism and ihe Lord's supper; thai it never was 
censured, condemned, or inlerdicted under the olti 



21 



dispensation by prophet, priest, or king— nor 
under the new by apostle, elder, or deacon; when 
shown all this, and convinced and driven to the 
wall on this point, they fly oft', and say, " Well, if 
you had not passed the Kansas-Nebraska bill, 
we might have gotten on perhaps for awhile longer 
tolerably well without much trouble; but you 
have passed that Mi/rti?iOMS bill, and repealed the 
glorious Missouri compromise Zine, and we "intend 
now to make a clean sweep of you; we intend 
to have no more slave States— no more slave 
Presidents; we intend to take the Government 
into our own hands — thus far shalt thou come and 
no further; we intend to restore the Missouri com- 
promise, and make Kansas free; apply the Wil- 
mot proviso, and forever close the doors to slavery 
in the Territories; repeal, or not execute, the fugi- 
tive slave law; restrict slavery to the Slates where 
it now exists; and finally, when we getthe power, 
abolish it altogether." 

Now, sir, this is the ground the Black Re- 
publicans assume, and the reason, they say, is, 
the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska bill. They 
say that the passage of this bill is the cause of 
the present agitation in the country. If so, sir, 
what was the cause of the agitation in 1820? 
There was no Missouri compromise repealed 
then: still the whole country was convulsed with 
the slavery agitation. AVhat was the cause of 
the agitation in 1849-50 ? There was no Mis- 
souri compromise line repealed then: still the 
whole country was in a perfect state of frenzy 
about the slavery agitation, and the wisest heads 
and strongest hearts trembled for the safety of the 
Republic. Yet there was no Missouri com- 
promise repealed, or proposed to be repealed, 
then. The proposition, then, from the South, 
was to abide by the Missouri compromise line, 
and to extend it in the like good faith in which 
it was originally adopted — to the Pacific ocean — 
and stop all agnation, and forever put to rest this 
vexed question of slavery. But these same 
men — these very identical men, who are now 
making so much fuss about a repeal of the Mis- 
souri compromise line, are the men — ah! sir, the 
very meUj who then opposed that line, and swore 
that not another State, either north or south of 
it, should ever come into the Union as a slave 
State; thus repudiating the line altogether and 
forever. Yes, these very .same men who re- 
pudiated it then are now the most clamorous 
about its repeal. Yes, sir, in 1848 these very 
men agitated, and said that this Missouri line was 
unjust, and had been imposed on the North by 
the aggressive policy of the South, and they 
would not observe it — they would not carry it 
out. In 1854-55-56 they again agitate, and say 
it has been repealed by the aggressive policy 
of the South, without their consent, and they will 
not stand it. They denounced it in 1848 as infa- 
mous and invalid. They laud it in 1854-55-56 
as glorious and inviolable; that it was an aggres- 
sion upon the North to pass it; that it is an ag- 
gression upon the North to i-epeal it; that the 
South is always aggressive — encroaching upon 
the North; that the North has been driven to 
agitation in self-defense. This is the position 
assumed by the Black Republican party, and this 
the sort of subterfuge they resort to to justify 
themselves before the country. 



Now, sir, nothing can be more unreasonable 
than these complaints of the North against the 
South about the aggressive policy of slavery. 
They allege that the South has encroached, and 
is constantly en4eavoring to encroach, upon the 
North in the maintenance of slavery. Let us 
examine, Mr. Cliairman, the history of the sub- 
ject, and ascertain how far the facts sustain the 
allegation. 

To say nothing of the extent and influence of 
slavery, so far as the original thirteen States are 
concerned, I will beo;in with the Northwestern 
Territory belonging to the State of Virginia. This 
was slave territory, but, by a condition attend- 
ing the cession of this territory to the Federal 
Government, it became free territory, out of 
M'hich five free States have since been made, 
adding to the strength of the North, and weaken- 
ing the slave power of the Union — increasing 
northern territory three-fold, and reducing south- 
ern nearly one half. In 1783, at the conclusion 
of peace, the States then north of Mason and 
Dixon's line had 164,081 square miles; the States 
then south of that lino had 647,202 square miles. 
This surrender of the South, and this accession to 
the North, increased the northern territory to 
425,761 square miles, and reduced the southern 
to 385,521 square miles. What next? 

The whole of the Louisiana Territory was, 
when we purchased it, slave territory by the local 
laws. Upon the application of Missouri, (apart 
of this territory,) to be admitted as a State into 
the Union, the North objected, unless she would 
provide by her constitution to abolish slavery. 
The question was com|3romised. I will only stop 
here to say, that it was unjustly and unconstitu- 
tionally compromised; but it was compromised, 
and slavery forever prohibited north and west of 
the northern and western boundaries of Missouri, 
and north of latitude 36° 30' north. On which 
side was the encroachment in this case? It was 
on the side of the North; and the South, in an 
evil hour, yielded to the unjust and unconsti- 
tutional exaction, and lost a large territory, which 
she had a perfect right to claim for slave territory. 

Again: when we were about to acquire Texas, 
it was objected that it was slave territory. By 
the local laws of Texas slavery did exist there. 
But she was admitted into the Union only upon 
condition that slavery should forever be prohibited 
in all that part of the Territory lying north of 
360 30'. Here, sir, is another encroachment of 
the North upon southern rights. 

Again, Mr. Chairman, Oregon, including what 
is now the Territory of Washington, was origin- 
ally slave territory. Yet by the law organizing 
a territorial government for Oregon, slavery was 
prohibited there. And thus another instance of 
encroachment of the North upon the South, while 
not a single instance of southern encroachment 
upon the North can be adduced — not one. 

To sum it all up in round numbers, the States 
north of Mason and Dixon's line, since 1783, 
by all the differentcessions, adjustments, and com- 
promises, have increased from 164,081 to 1 ,903,204 
square miles, having added to their territorial 
limits 1,738,123 square miles; while the southern 
States have increased from 647,202 to 882,253 
square miles, having added but 235,043 square 
miles to their territorial limits; shov/ing that, 



22 



while the North has increased in territorial limits 
about twelve hundred per cent., the South, in the | 
same linU', has increased a little less than fifty per 
cent. And y<t they say the South is aggressive, 
and alwavij has hecn. , | 

What Jlsi", sir? By a solemn compact embraced i 
in the organic law of this Fideral Union, without ; 
which the Union itself never could have been | 
formed, the northern States bound themselves to | 
deliver up fugitive slaves. They have not only i 
disregarded itiis solemn obligaiion, but in some | 
instances have enacted jiosiiive laws to prohibit; 
its execution. I have shown you the instances ;; 
in which the North have encroached upon the '^ 
8outh. Here is one instance of broken faith on 
the part of the North with the South. The next 
is in th'- non-observance and n-pudiaiion of the i 
Missouri compromise line as a principle of adjust- ; 
menl upon the slavery question, so unjmttij and i 
unconstlltilionulhj forc.-d upon the South by the ' 
North in the first instance. j 

in ]8i!U, as I have stated, the North imposed' 
opon the South the Missouri restriction unjustly | 
and in violation of the Constitution; but in an I 
evil hour the South agreed to accept it as an ad- 
justment of the then pending difficulties upon the 
subject of slavery. Well, sir, when Texas was 
annexed in 1845, and the question was again ; 
raised about slavery, the South, true <o her under- 
standing of the Missouri compromise as a prin- 
ciple of adjusinieni, proposed, for the same rea- 1 
eon that they had agreed to the line in 1820, to j 
extend it through Texas to her western border 
and cut herself olf from slave territory, which i 
she then had and to which she was justly entitled. 
Well, sir, it was agreed to, and the North got the 
benefit of it. - 

What next.' In 1848, at the conclusion of the | 
Mexican' war, and by the treaty of Guadalupe 
Hidalgo, we acquired a large tract of country, 
now known as California, Utah, and New Mex- 
ico. Territorial governments had to be organized 
for them; and the question, "How shall it be 
done, so as to do justice to the North and South .'" 
was raised. The South again, true to lier under- 
standing of the Missouri compromise line, for 
the same reasons which had induced its adop- 
tion in 18iU, ju'oposed to extend it to ihi; Pa- 
cific ocean, and thus divide the newly-acquired 
territory equitably, as ihey thought, between the 
North and the South, upon the basis of the Mis- 
souri line, which the North had originally forced 
U[i0n the South against her will, and thus to put 
to rest forever the slavery agitation, which, un- 
happily, had so long disturbed the repose of the 
country. Wi II, in conformity to this view of 
the South, Mr. Uouclas, of Illinois, in 1848, 
oflered a bill ui the Senate to extend the line of 
36° 3U' to the Pacific ocean. The Senate agreed 
to it, and passid the bill; but when it was sent 
to this 1 lousr, the same parly that is now making 
■o much noise in the country n jecledit with gnat 
contempt, 'i'liey turned round, and ran Mr. Van 
Burcn lor the Presidency upon tlie I3uf)alo plat- 
form, declaring that not another slave Slate should 
ever be ailnuit> d into the Union, either jioi7/i or 
loutli of the Missouri compromise line. Thus, 
by their votes in this House against the Senate 
bill, and their votes for Mr. Van lluren for the 
Pr«8idency, ihey repudiated and wijied out for- 



ever, as far as they are concerned, the line of 3G° 
30'; and they stand to-day completely estopped 
from all cause of complaint against Congress for 
repealing the Missouri compromise line by the 
passage of the Kansas-Nebraska bill, because 
they , by two solemn acts, (the one the vote against 
the Senate bill, the other the vote for Mr. Van 
Buren for the Presidency,) had repealed the same 
line six years before. They have no right now to 
complain of Congress for doing that which they 
themselves had done six years previous. 

Mr. PURVIANCE. I wish to ask the gen- 
tleman, for whom tliose votes now go that were 
cast lor Mr. Van Buren then.' 

Mr. TALBOTT. I cannot toll. Mr. Van 
Buren, 1 understand, has seen the error of his 
way, and will vote for Mr. Buchan.ui. And 
it would be well if all those who voted for Mr. 
Van Buren in 1848 would repent of their sins 
and go and do likewise. I only regret that they 
' do not do so. If they would, it would sive repose 

to the country, and stability to the Union. 

1 But, Mr. Chairman, this is the condition in 

j which Congress and the country were left from 

I 1848 to 185U. A large tract of country had been 

acquired from Mexico; it was filling up rapidly, 

and territorial governments were needed for the 

whole. The slavery agitation was shakins: the 

Government to its center; the Missouri coinpro* 

mise stood repudiated by the North; no modt 

I of udjustnient hitherto adopted and sanctionoi 

' by the country seemed practicable; and C/)ngresi 

' had to devise some new plan of adjustment to 

I avert the impending storm, which seemed to 

' be gathering everywhere for our destruction. 

Well, after nearly two years of haid labori 

'amid the deepest excitement, by the exertion of 

! the wisest and best men we had, the plan of 

j non-intervention, as indicated in the compro- 

! mise measures of 1850, was recomineiided and 

' adopt' d. Well, sir, the slavery agitation ceased; 

[the country was quieted; the measiins of 1850 

[ were approved by everybody and by every s'ec- 

tion; the more the principle of non-intervention 

, was investigated, the more popularand acceptable 

: it seemed to be. Every one who looked at it and 

' investigated it, saw at once that it was only cariy- 

: ing out the great principle upon which our Gov- 

I eminent is based — man s right and cajiability of 

' self-government. They saw at once that it was 

I only extending to the Territories precisely the 

same privihges which are now, and have been 

since ihi> Go\ernineiit was first organized, en- 

I joyed by every Stale in the Union. And, in 

185:2, the Whig party and the Democratic party 

i both met in national convention, and indorsed 

I the principles of non-intervention, whieh had 

I been so adopted in lieu of the Missouri restriction, 

pirit and in substance. We come, then, up 



[to 1854, with this principle of non-intervention, 

' in lieu of the Missouri restriction, adopted by 

Congress, in iPJO — adopted by all parties agairt 

in lb5:J, and ap|irovid by the country cvery- 

! where. Kansas and Nebraska were knocking at 

the door of Congress for territorial bills. Well, 

California was being rapidly settKd. Our people, 

j North, South, East, and West, seemed deter- 

' mined to go iu search of gold. There was no 

1 land route from the North, tkvst, and West, 



23 



but throuijli Nebraska. It was then, I think, 
a fine of !jl,000 and six months' imprisonment, 
for any man to be found traveling or trading, 
without permission, in tiie Indian country. Not- 
withstanding the law of fings and penalties, our 
people were rushing by thousands constantly 
across this Indian country. Many fell victims to 
the tomahawk and scalping-knife of the merciless 
savages. SomcLhing had to be done; a I'emedy, 
as far as may be, had to be applied. All agreed 
to this; all agreed that Kansas ought to have a 
territorial oiganization ; but what to do in regard 
to slavery, was the question raised. 

Now, I contend that there was but one alter- 
native left. The Missouri compromise stood 
repudiated by the North, formally, as ajirinciple; 
locally, and in a governmental point of view, the 
non-intervention principle had been adopted in 
lieu, and because the North would not suffer the 
Missouri line to be carried out. Washington Ter- 
ritory had been organized aliout eight monthsafter 
the passage of the compromise of 1850, on the 
priaciple of non-intervention. Two portions of 
this same Nebraska Territory had been incor- 
porated in the territorial bills of 1850. The one 
portion into the territorial bill of New Mexico, 
and the other into the territorial bill of Utah 
upon the same princijile of non-intervention. All 
parties, and all the people, in all the sections of 
tke Union, had approved the action of Congress 
in the premises, and I hold that there was no 
alternative left for Congress but to do precisely 
what she did do. If it was right to apply the 

Principle of non-intervention to a part of t!ie 
lebraska Territory, as in the case of Utah and 
New Mexico, it was right to apply it likewise in 
the case of Kansas and Nebraska; and Congress 
could not have done otherwise, without repudi- 
ating what it did in 1850, in the adoption of the 
non-intervention principle — without repudiating 
what both the great political parties did in the 
national conventions, in 1852 — without repudi- 
ating even the action of the very men who are 
now so noisy about the repeal of the Missouri 
restriction; for they, as I said before, had repu- 
diated the same line six years previous, by their 
own votes in this House, and at the polls. Now, 
sir, I say that, in view of all these fact.«, Congress 
could not have done otherwise than pass the 
Kansas and Nebraska bill just as it is. it is 
just, e<>ii8iitutionaI, and right; it neither legislates 
slavery into, nor excludes it from, the Territo- 
ries, but leave.s the people thereof perfectly free 
to organize their own governments and regulate 
iheir own domestic institutions for themselves. 
If, Mr. Chairman, .the people are capable of self- 
govenuiient, who in our country will say tiiey 
pught not to do it.' If they have the right, who 
will say they shall not do it .' If, then, they have 
both the capacity and the right, in rea.gon's name, 
in the name of justice and cur glorious Constitu- 
tion, let them (io it. 

Mr. Chairman, nearthre.e quarters of a century 
have elapsed since the organization of our Govern- 
ment under our present excellent Federal Consti- 
tution. Since that time, life, liberty, property, 
and the pursuit of happiness, have been equally 
secured to, and enjoyed by, every citizen m the 
country, native-born and naturalized, Protestant 
and Roman Catjiolic, We hare been the most 



peaceful, prosperous, and happy people in the 
world. We have made the rapid and unparalleled 
growth of from three to near thirty millions in 
population, of from thirteen to thirty-one States, 
with territory sufficient for from te:i to twenty 
more of equal average size with the present. We 
have advanced from poverty to wealth, from 
weakness to strength, from greatness to glory. 
Our ships plow every ocean; our sails whiten 
every sea; our commerce extends to every civil- 
ized nation upon earth; and our power and in- 
fluence are fell and respected by every kingdom 
and empire in the world. Our past has been a 
most briliant — a most glorious career. The God 
of nature and of nations seems to have marked 
us for his own. fie has not only been good, but 
very good to us. He has blessed us in our house, 
and in our store; in our people, and in our rulers; 
in our foreign, and in our domestic relations. 
Everything that a good Government wisely ad- 
ministered — everything that science, literature, 
and religion — everythmg that agriculture, com- 
merce, and manufactures — everything, in short, 
sir, that hurnan wisdom, human energy, and 
human efiort, crowned with the blessing of an 
omnipotent, omniscient, and beneficent Creator 
could accomplish, has been by us most gloriously 
achieved in the past. Yes, sir; and asit'.e from the 
internal feuds, excited l)y the clamor for Know 
Nothingism and Black Republicanism, we stand 
to day, wi'h all our population, white and black, 
, bond and free, native-born and naturalized — with 
all our religions, Protestant and Roman Catholic — 
and with all our institutions, political, social, and 
domestic, the freest and happiest, the most peace- 
ful and prosperous, and the most powerful and 
influential nation upon the face of the green, 
broad earth ! 

What more could we have done — what more 
could we liave desired to do? What more could 
we enjoy — what more could we desire to enjoy — 
than what we now possess.' Surely we would 
prove ourselves ungrateful to ask, and unworthy 
to receive, if we were to ask more than has been 
so graciously and so bountifully conferred upon 
us. This is a true picture — a faithful history of 
our past. And how, let me ask you, and through 
what human instrumentalities, has all this been 
efl'ected .' It has not been by the Know Nothing 
or Black Republican parties, nor by Know Noth- 
ing or Black Republican principles — not by the 
di.claration, that freedom was national, and sla- 
very sectional — not by declaring and enforcing 
the doctrine of no more slave States, and the 
non-rendition of fugitive skives — not by getting 
uji new tests of birth and blood, and religion, for 
office, unknown to, and violative of, the Consti- 
tution — not by getting up a war of races and re- 
ligions, drawing invidious distinctions between 
the native-born and naturalized, the Protestanl 
and Roman Catholic, citizen — not by getting up 
secret, oath-bound political organizations, and 
swearing their memijcrs to vote for no man, for 
any office in the Government, State or National, 
from the highest to the lo>vest, unless he be a 
native-born American citizen, in favor of Anier- 
ieane ruling America, nor if he be a Roman Cath- 
olic. No, Mr. Chairman, it was not by any in- 
strumentalities of this sort, that these great ends 
have been achieved. How, then, and by what 



24 



human instnirnfntaliiica, has it all been done?,! 
By iht'old Wiii^ and the old Democratic parties, ' 
directed by the unseen but unerring hand of a 
kind Providi-nre, and through the instrumentali- 
ties of our glorious Coiulitutiuii and Union as , 
ihey are. 

These new parties, and these wild and imprac- 
ticable principles, were unknown in the days of I 
our Revolution. They were not taught, nor would I 
they iiave been tolerated if they hud been taught, | 
ill the days of Washington and Jelferson. They j 
dare not show their heads in the days of Alonroe 
or Mudison, Calhoun or Jackson, Clay or Web- 
ster. I know that the Know Nothings assert that 
Washington said foreigners would not do to trust 
— you must keep " none but Americans on guard 
to-night." I know they read scraps and pieces 
taken from nuitiiated letters and documents of 
Washington and Jeft'erson, and try to make it 
appear that they were in favor of Know Nolhing- 
ism as now taught.' But, sir, lu-re [holding up 
the Constitution of the United States] are all the 
li'tters, or the embodiment of ail the letters, of 
Washington and Jeflerson, in regard to natural- 
ized citizens and Roman Catholics. This book, 
(the Constitution,) this blessed book, contains 
the last will and testament of the Fatlier of his 
Country, superintended by himself in person; 
and when he was satisfied it was alt right, tlien, 
but not till tlun, lie put his own great name to 
it, written by his own riglil arm. It contains all 
liis wishes, all his opinions, all his acts, upon 
all these suiijects. And in this book — this great, 
tliis good book, there is nothing said, not even a 
word, about fn-cdom being national and slavery 
Brctional; nothing about the Catholic religion 
being wrong and the Protestant religion right; 
nothing about native citizens being worthy and 
naturalized citizens unworthy; nothing, in all its 
length and breadth, that requires a man to aban- 
don his property in slaves before he can settle in 
any of the 'rcrriiories in the Union; nothing, sir, 
that requires a man to swear '• that he will not 
TOtc for any man, for any office. Stale or national, 
unless he be a native-born American citizen, in 
favor of Americans ruling America; nor if he be a 
Roman Catholic." iS'othing — nothing of this 
sorlin all the length and breadth of thatgreat book. 
It breathes a very different spirit. It breathes the 



spirit that Martin Luther breathed when he raised 
his godlike voice in favor of the freedom of religion 
and the equality of rights. It leaves religion freo, 
unrestrained, and unrestrainable. It leaves the 
rights of all equal and inviolable. It knows no 
North, no South, no East.no West, as such, but 
all — all are equallij included and protected by its 
ample provisions. Is it not, then, Mr. Chairman, 
a glorious book? Is it not a wise and equitable 
will.' Does it not contain a rich and glorious 
legacy? And should we not venerate it, and rally 
around it, and defend it against all aggression, 
innovation, or infraction, come from what quarter 
it may? 

Let us, then, with the most profound respect 
and veneration, rally around this instrument, as 
containino; the last will and testament of the 
Father of his Country; in which he has be- 
queathed (o each and every of us, his legitimate 
political offspring, equal rights and equal priv- 
ileges — civil, social, political, and religious Let 
us, too, rally around the two old political parties, 
who, with such firmness and faithfulness, have 
maintained and preserved that good book, with 
all its glorious provisions, against the assaults of 
every foe. Let us stand by them and their time- 
honored principles, which, under the blessing of 
a kind Providence, have enabled them to conduct 
us so safely, so peacefully, and so unerringly, to 
the high and enviable position we now occupy. 
Let us, sir, in view of the present crisis — for- 
getting all f^ormer political lies — to save our coun- 
try and our institutions, abandon the unwise, the 
unjust, and suicidal policy of Know Noihingism 
and Black Republicanism, and return to the time- 
honored ju-inciples and policy of our fathers. If 
we will, the fierce, fiery, stormy agitation now 
raging on our northern border would soon ba 
abated — sectional jealousy and sectional hate soon 
allayed — the Constitution maintained intact — the 
glorious union of the States preserved as they 
are — all cause of strife removed — freedom of reli- 
gion and equality of rights enjoyed by every, 
citizen and every section — the North and the 
South could strike hands together — the East and 
West embrace each other — and America, our 
fatherland, our beloved America, would never 
cease to be " the land of the free and the home 
of the1)rave!*' 



Printed at tbe Office of the Congressional Ulobe. 



W46 












•f 






0^ 



v-^,^ 

*^'"^. 



' 4 O 






- s » o'' 






Cu. 




* ^y t', ' 










: ' ^« 


.0 ■ 









,.^^'■ 



,>^^ 












o. 






■s^^ 






,S' 



.0 



.^' 



P-t: 



^. 



• ^'■^ 



.^'^V 






>'%. 
-1^ 



.^'% 

















^ 


"'^ 


6^ 




• 


4 


°^ 











^^'^ ^^ 









* c,^ 



1 






HO 









^^^"-^ . 



.NJ". 



• V 



0* ^-f- 






.<^^ .._ "'^^*' ^- c^^^. 




^^ * • . 




111". <&i,^%'»' :Sm.; %..■}■ 








BOOKBINDING 

C-anUille Fa 
=- fee 19S? 






;. ""o 



,0' 



